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.

 

[KevinB]

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

That’s what suppressors and subsonic ammo are for

The two are close cousins.

Debatable.
The Right of a person to Self Defense (up to an including lethal force) to protect themselves and others (some places restrict it to others in their care - quibbling point) is an enshrined foundation of common law.
The Ability of a person to defend ones self can often be impacted by Gun Laws.



My initial point was we did have a thread here on UoF/Self Defense, and ideally this could get shunted over there.

 

[KevinB]

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 .

Honestly any situation that I think may end up with me potentially using lethal force, or even the threat of lethal force, I try to dial 911.
What, How, and When to tell LE information is situational, and no LEO should be upset if you want to talk to a lawyer first.

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

The very reason I opt to call LE, is crooks generally don’t - initiating LE contact allows you to frame the narrative.

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.

100%
Dogs are great (at least in most areas), but also motion activated cameras, and perimeter lighting. In some locations more aggressive forms of fencing are encouraged.


Also Food for thought:

A good friend of mine who is a veteran FBI CT Agent has a VA CWP, as well as a number of Non Resident State CCW permits.
His logic (his is also a criminal lawyer by schooling) is that the expectation of Standard and Duty of Care is lower for a Civilian with concealed weapon permit - whereas in some areas the expectations for LE/MIL, or Prior Service are at Jason Bourne levels of precision.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

I think "warning shots" are a result of two distinct forces, one is Hollywood, where warning shots are a staple. Creating a methodology in the mind as a option in a unfamiliar scenario. The other being that law abiding people don't have a desire to kill someone and don't wake up with "I wonder if I get to shoot someone today". So someone fires a warning shot, it's is likley out of desire to make the threat stop without applying deadly force.

Crown prosecutors in the past have shown an aptitude to "punishing" anyone use firearms to defend themselves, Mr Thompson springs to mind.

Meanwhile back in the city: Ontario judge sentences handgun trafficker to house arrest after mandatory minimum declared unconstitutional

 

[Haggis]

Also Food for thought:

A good friend of mine who is a veteran FBI CT Agent has a VA CWP, as well as a number of Non Resident State CCW permits.
His logic (his is also a criminal lawyer by schooling) is that the expectation of Standard and Duty of Care is lower for a Civilian with concealed weapon permit - whereas in some areas the expectations for LE/MIL, or Prior Service are at Jason Bourne levels of precision.

In the big picture I have no real heartache with a civilian using a firearm for self defence when faced with an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death (GBHD). However, I'm more reluctant to be supportive of it regarding property crimes or non imminent threat of GBHD. The reason is that while most firearms owners are at least competent in the use of their firearm and some even have a decent level of marksmanship skills, the biggest piece missing is the training in shoot/no shoot judgement, which is rare and hard to obtain here in Canada due to successive Liberal governments telling Canadians that "self defence is not an legitimate reason for owning a firearm in Canada".

 

[Eaglelord17]

In the big picture I have no real heartache with a civilian using a firearm for self defence when faced with an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death (GBHD). However, I'm more reluctant to be supportive of it regarding property crimes or non imminent threat of GBHD. The reason is that while most firearms owners are at least competent in the use of their firearm and some even have a decent level of marksmanship skills, the biggest piece missing is the training in shoot/no shoot judgement, which is rare and hard to obtain here in Canada due to successive Liberal governments telling Canadians that "self defence is not an legitimate reason for owning a firearm in Canada".

I would go so far as to say any threat of harm whatsoever on your property/home should allow firearms for self defence.

It shouldn’t be up to the homeowner to have to identify the motive/risk in their own home. It should be presumed they seek to do harm to you in a place they aren’t authorized to be.

That doesn’t mean you can shoot at fleeing vehicles/people (which from the limited information released is what this sounds like), but you shouldn’t have to be put at risk just because someone else seeks to violate your rights.

I sympathize with the homeowner, however you also can’t just shoot at people running away.

 

[Haggis]

I would go so far as to say any threat of harm whatsoever on your property/home should allow firearms for self defence.

Any use of a firearm, from brandishing to discharging is lethal force. Hard to articulate the use of lethal force in defence of property. In Canada you not only have to contend with firearms use laws (pointing, reckless use etc.) but also storage laws. That's part of what caught Thompson (mentioned above).

It shouldn’t be up to the homeowner to have to identify the motive/risk in their own home. It should be presumed they seek to do harm to you in a place they aren’t authorized to be.

Although there is no duty to retreat in Canada, method and motive of the offender do play a role in determining if the force used was both reasonable and, to a lesser degree, proportional.

That doesn’t mean you can shoot at fleeing vehicles/people (which from the limited information released is what this sounds like), but you shouldn’t have to be put at risk just because someone else seeks to violate your rights.

I sympathize with the homeowner, however you also can’t just shoot at people running away.

There is lots of case law that supports your comment.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Any use of a firearm, from brandishing to discharging is lethal force. Hard to articulate the use of lethal force in defence of property. In Canada you not only have to contend with firearms use laws (pointing, reckless use etc.) but also storage laws. That's part of what caught Thompson (mentioned above).

Although there is no duty to retreat in Canada, method and motive of the offender do play a role in determining if the force used was both reasonable and, to a lesser degree, proportional.

There is lots of case law that supports your comment.

Ignoring our actual laws, my gut is that anyone seeking to do someone harm on their property should be able to be met with lethal force.

I don’t care if it is proportional, I would want that to be as asymmetric in my favour as possible.

If the criminal thinks thats unfair, don’t come on to someones property seeking to do them harm then.