The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Colin Parkinson]

More nonsense continues…

Is it the police or Crown that lay charges in Manitoba?

 

[OldSolduer]

Is it the police or Crown that lay charges in Manitoba?

Both can IIRC.

 

[Haggis]

More nonsense continues…

For the time being, I'm going to side with the police. Based on available info, he was not at immediate risk of grievous bodily harm or death and did not need to fire at the thieves.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For the time being, I'm going to side with the police. Based on available info, he was not at immediate risk of grievous bodily harm or death and did not need to fire at the thieves.

4 likley younger adults in the dark, without him knowing if they were armed or more of them. The risk of grievous bodily harm or death to the homeowner is likley very high.

People like to say: "Property is replaceable", actually as you get older, it is not replaceable, money = time and time is in short supply as you get older. Also living in a rural area, statistically calling the police means that they will almost always come after the criminals are gone. If you as a property owner do nothing, then the criminal activity will generally get worse, eventually leading to more deaths and the bankrupting of people and businesses.

It's likley in this case a call was made early on, based on my understanding, which could be completely wrong, it also appears that the 3 adults surrendered to the homeowner and awaited the arrival of the police. Since it also appears he did not hit anyone, it's quite possible his shots were deliberate to get the perps to surrender.

 

[Genetk44]

For the time being, I'm going to side with the police. Based on available info, he was not at immediate risk of grievous bodily harm or death and did not need to fire at the thieves.

Did he actually fire AT the thieves?

 

[Halifax Tar]

For the time being, I'm going to side with the police. Based on available info, he was not at immediate risk of grievous bodily harm or death and did not need to fire at the thieves.

We're gonna disagree here.

I couldn't give to shits about the age of the offenders. They are in stolen vehicle(s?), full of stolen stuff, stealing gas...



I prefer the Sheriff Grady method.

 

[Haggis]

Did no one read the first line of my post? "For the time being". In any use of force incident, more details come out over time and my opinions may change due to that.

4 likley younger adults in the dark, without him knowing if they were armed or more of them. The risk of grievous bodily harm or death to the homeowner is likley very high.

"Likely" is scant justification for the use of lethal force to prevent a property crime. If y'all want to go shooting at people/vehicles in the dark without knowing the situational factors, go for it.

Since it also appears he did not hit anyone, it's quite possible his shots were deliberate to get the perps to surrender.

Hence the discharging in a reckless manner charge. Tell me again, why you have to be SURE of your target and background?

 

[KevinB]

We're gonna disagree here.

I couldn't give to shits about the age of the offenders. They are in stolen vehicle(s?), full of stolen stuff, stealing gas...

View attachment 101833

I prefer the Sheriff Grady method.

Right or Wrong, Canada has different laws for the use of force than most States.

Here in Virginia for instance Lethal Force cannot be used to protect property by itself (it can if you are in the dwelling, or conveyance, with certain caveats).
A homeowner may arrest or attempt to arrest a person (or persons) who are committing/committed an offense to which is punishable by imprisonment over 1 year, which basically means a Felony, and what constitutes a Felony can be relatively convoluted. Generally Non LEO arrest w/o warrant is rife with danger if one isn’t well versed on the law.

Now here Disparity of Force has been codified, that allows for Lethal Force to be used when one party is smaller/weaker, or outnumbered by their attackers -- but that is in the protection of life arena, not protection of property.


Coercive Force is pretty much the realm of the state, and any individual actions down that path are very very risky.

“Warning Shots” here is a topic that is so problematic that it is hard even for SME’s in Judicial and LEO UoF to agree all the time.
Any discharge of a firearm is lethal force, regardless if there is a person targeted or not. So the only 'saving grace’ for firing a ‘warning shot’ is that one would have otherwise fired into a person (or persons), and that somehow this use of lethal force was reasonable, as it (subjectively) decreased the likelihood of needing to fire into someone. However where did the ‘warning shot’ go, was it aimed fire into a demonstrably safe backstop?
I won’t claim Warning Shots are never appropriate, but they have so many risk factors involved that they should never be a Go To COA.



-----------------------
Secondly this is crossing the streams on Gun Laws, and Use of Force Laws.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

We're gonna disagree here.

I couldn't give to shits about the age of the offenders. They are in stolen vehicle(s?), full of stolen stuff, stealing gas...

View attachment 101833

I prefer the Sheriff Grady method.

I wonder if the homeowner called the police? If he did, lesson learned, don't call the police and don't even talk to them .

The crooks aren't going to call the cops, let them scamper off and they will never be back to your house again

Also, get some "protection" dogs. My uncle kept three Rottweilers on chains strung around his millions of dollars worth of commercial fishing equipment. Some thieves learned some hard lessons trying to steal boat motors and other assorted equipment from his operation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wonder if the homeowner called the police? If he did, lesson learned, don't call the police and don't even talk to them .

The crooks aren't going to call the cops, let them scamper off and they will never be back to your house again

In my neighborhood gun shots don't warrant a bat signal anymore either...

Secondly this is crossing the streams on Gun Laws, and Use of Force Laws.

The two are close cousins.

 

[NavyShooter]

Today was a special day -here we see a WW1 era Ross Rifle, manufactured in 1916. This rifle has a bit of history, but the important part today is that the rifle is stamped with PLF MG and Rack number 50.

This was a PLF issued rifle, post 1936 when we added the (MG) to the unit designation. It was likely used here in Halifax in the early part of WW2, but was unlikely to have gone overseas as we would have been carrying Lee Enfield #4 Rifles instead.

This PLF MG rifle joins my collection which also includes an 1860's Snyder Enfield that is stamped for the 66th Regiment, Rack number 202. The two rifles were, at some point in their histories, both in the North Park Armoury down in the basement vaults.

The Snyder Enfield has been present at the past several Change of Command ceremonies, resting on the signing table (holding the paper down from blowing away!)

My intent is to place both rifles in the case with the Unit Colours when we return to the North Park Armouries on long term loan from my collection to the Unit alongside the Vickers Tripod I've already loaned.

The other gentleman in the photo was at Unit Lines with me today doing the hand-over. You can see that we had a little 'family reunion' of Ross Rifles today. He was quite pleased to have been received by the CO, RSM and myself, and to be a part of delivering this part of our unit's history back into our hands.

Recalling the incident a few weeks ago of a former Member of Parliament who did not properly transfer a couple of rifles when he sold them, I spent about 10 minutes on the phone with the Canadian Firearms Center today and got a confirmation Email in minutes proving that the deal was legit from their side, and that the other gentleman's PAL was valid, and so was mine.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

In my neighborhood gun shots don't warrant a bat signal anymore either...



The two are close cousins.

"If I did this to your home, what would you do?"

Such a simple question, that criminals never seem to ask themselves when they do these things.