Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

If Stanley had claimed he was acting in self defense, and had his guns for that purpose, and had a real jury he would have been convicted of murder.

He shot a man in the back of the head, FFS. A man who posed no threat to him at all.

It is telling that this whole line about farmers arming themselves, and municipalities wanting to give them that right is so fucked up that even our Sask Party justice minister felt the need to pay attention and say something. 

And why a cop is smart enough to not go all Charles Bronson on a home invader? Maybe for the same reason most doctors are smart enough to not operate on themselves. Because they realize there is a good chance they might wind up in over their heads.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In the earlier situation, you asked why you couldn't shoot someone coming into your house, and I explained that by law you can't just go after someone in that situation unless it's self-defense.

My question -- and I think I've asked this a few dozen times on babble -- is how I'm to know, for certain, whether I'm defending my silverware or myself.  I'm to be an expert on body language?  Or wait until the intruder has the upper hand, at which point there's nothing I can do except note that my hunch was correct?

Are intruders LEGALLY obligated to tell me, honestly, whether they'll harm me or my family?

Quote:
Ah, so people who decide to move themselves out of harms way are cowards in your books? Glad to know.

No, regular citizens surely aren't.

But the police??  My pretty obvious point was that if a police officer won't deal with a criminal then we shouldn't expect that all we have to do is call the police to deal with a criminal.

Jesus.  If you're a paramedic, and your grandfather is having a heart attack, don't fucking call 911 and ask for a paramedic to come and do CPR on him.  If you're a paramedic, do CPR on him.  WTF???

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If Stanley had claimed he was acting in self defense, and had his guns for that purpose, and had a real jury he would have been convicted of murder.

He shot a man in the back of the head, FFS. A man who posed no threat to him at all.

Accidently. Whether or not he posed a threat is immaterial. It wasn't self-defence. It was an accident. 

If he had given your version of events any jury would convict. He didn't. Just because that is what you think happened doesn't make it provable beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law. Your claim that it was an execution style murder just doesn't hold up in my opinion. 

NDPP

"Boushie's Uncle Slams Saskatchewan MPs Who Won't Speak Up: 'They Figure This Is Just Going To Go Away' - the Hill Times

https://twitter.com/RussDiabo/status/970809705235755009

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
In the earlier situation, you asked why you couldn't shoot someone coming into your house, and I explained that by law you can't just go after someone in that situation unless it's self-defense.

My question -- and I think I've asked this a few dozen times on babble -- is how I'm to know, for certain, whether I'm defending my silverware or myself.  I'm to be an expert on body language?  Or wait until the intruder has the upper hand, at which point there's nothing I can do except note that my hunch was correct?

Are intruders LEGALLY obligated to tell me, honestly, whether they'll harm me or my family?

If it's a home invasion specifically, then I will concede that that is a little bit different because of the stakes involved. However, generally speaking, the advice that police generally give people to stay safe is to avoid confrontation if at all possible, and that if someone wants something from you that badly that (s)he is willing to hurt you to get it, then the safest course of action is to generally hand it over. If there are any police agencies that advise to resort to confrontation first off, I'd like to see that.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Ah, so people who decide to move themselves out of harms way are cowards in your books? Glad to know.

No, regular citizens surely aren't.

But the police??  My pretty obvious point was that if a police officer won't deal with a criminal then we shouldn't expect that all we have to do is call the police to deal with a criminal.

Well if the officer is off duty, then (s)he is in many respects just a "regular citizen." In some cases they may be expected to intervene in that capacity if they see a crime happening to someone else, but when it comes to how they handle what happens to them, they still have discretion.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If you're a paramedic, and your grandfather is having a heart attack, don't fucking call 911 and ask for a paramedic to come and do CPR on him.  If you're a paramedic, do CPR on him.  WTF???

Assuming that you still emotionally competent to handle that situation (and not all people are when it comes to close relations) you would still have to call 911 so that more paramedics can come and monitor your grandfather. You still can't do everything by yourself in that situation.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

If Stanley had claimed he was acting in self defense, and had his guns for that purpose, and had a real jury he would have been convicted of murder.

He shot a man in the back of the head, FFS. A man who posed no threat to him at all.

Accidently. Whether or not he posed a threat is immaterial. It wasn't self-defence. It was an accident. 

If he had given your version of events any jury would convict. He didn't. Just because that is what you think happened doesn't make it provable beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law. Your claim that it was an execution style murder just doesn't hold up in my opinion.

Awwww, the poor little farmer. He was scared by the big, bad, band of Natives driving around his farm. He didn't mean to shoot Colten, it was just an accident. Pretty much the sentiment of the racists who live here on the Prairies.

If you actually believe this version of events, then I can convince you to buy a tropical island resort in Iqaluit.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And why a cop is smart enough to not go all Charles Bronson on a home invader? Maybe for the same reason most doctors are smart enough to not operate on themselves. Because they realize there is a good chance they might wind up in over their heads.

I can take a shot at anwering that for you.

When a police officer is on duty they do not have to abide by the Canadian Firearms Act, the same way they don't apply by the traffic act (no seatbelts, texting and drivign FTW).  Once they are off duty they have to abide by the CFA.  What does that mean?  SOME  police departments have department policies where police officers are allowed to carry their duty firearms home, most do not. That means police officers who do not have that department policy must go through all the hoops that me and you have to do to own guns. That means they  must abide by safe storage laws which means it's safer to run away if someone breaks in your house than it is to fuck around opening up a safe (providing it's close by) taking the trigger lock or whatever off, loading a magazine in to the gun and then using it.

Your example of a doctor operating on himself is super silly.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unless you have been in a position where you have used that weapon against someone, or had one used on you, no you don't.

Americans use guns for self-defense every day. Lots of first timers. Sometimes shooting but when you start looking into it the majority of crimes and assaults in said situations are deescalated without a shot being fired. Presense of gun makes people want to be somewher else.

Quote:

It's one thing to talk about defending your castle, and what you would do when you are face to face with the guy with the gun. Quite another if you are buddy the armed guard who was too shit scared to even go into the school and do his job.

Refering to Parkland?

Quote:

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the law, which says that no, you aren't allowed to carry a gun for alleged self defense against people.

Yup. No guns for self-defense when you have a restricted liscence. Only collecting or target shooting. They ask you every time you transfer a restricted gun. If you so happen to use if for self-defense thent hat's different.   A few hundred Canadians have ATCs or authorization to carry, meaning you can use those for self-defnese against animals in some cases or self-defense in others when you demonstrate a need for self-defense. 

6079_Smith_W

Do I need to repeat this again?

Many of these farmers have stated they are carrying firearms for self defense. SARM voted 93 percent to allow them greater powers to defend themselves.

Carrying for that purpose is a crime. If Stanley had claimed that defense (and had he had a real jury) he would be in jail for murder. Our justice minister made the point of telling them the province would not allow residents to take the law into their own hands.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sarm-resolution-rural-crime-1...

And Paladin, do I really have to remind you of the record of gun violence in the United States?

Yes, I know about the authorization to carry. I already commented on it upthread. With respect to people it requires an IMMINENT specific threat, and a situation where the police cannot help you. Not thinking you might run into robbers or sicko torturers. It is extremely rare.

This lunacy the you people are promoting is illegal, and the province has already stated explicitly it is not going to happen. And the gun nuts who are doing it are breaking the law.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

Carrying for that purpose is a crime. If Stanley had claimed that defense (and had he had a real jury) he would be in jail for murder. Our justice minister made the point of telling them the province would not allow residents to take the law into their own hands.

 

Carrying for that self-defense against people yes but Mr Stanley is on the record of going into the house to get the gun and bring it back out. That doesn't constitute as carrying.

So the only real jury possible in this case would be an FN jury, correct?

And ya the Justice Minister sure says some interesting things.

Quote:

And Paladin, do I really have to remind you of the record of gun violence in the United States?

Only if you want me to reply with irritating facts like the states with the heaviest gun control laws are among the most violent and vice versa for states with lax gun control laws ;)

Or shootings in the US is down since the mid 90's despite gun ownership sky rocketing.   Maybe we shouldn't.

 

 

But seriously, it's strange that you seem more worried about farmers defending themselves than people being victimized by criminals . Why is that?

6079_Smith_W

Actually even under the circumstances if he had claimed self defense and had a real jury he would have been convicted too. But if, like these farmers, he had been carrying for the purpose of defending against people that in itself would have been a crime.

Again, assuming a jury that recognized shooting someone in the back of the head for what it is.

I'm concerned about people getting killed, Paladin. Maybe we should remember that that was the end result here.

By the way, there are some people who are trying to deal with these circumstances without reaching for their guns:

http://www.ckom.com/2017/10/19/sask-cottage-owners-take-action-on-rural-...
 

 

 

JKR

How wasn't the jury "real?"

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Awwww, the poor little farmer. He was scared by the big, bad, band of Natives driving around his farm. He didn't mean to shoot Colten, it was just an accident. Pretty much the sentiment of the racists who live here on the Prairies. 

So you are saying it is not possible that an SUV driving irradically on the rim could be dangerous enough for someone to feel fear for their safety? I do admit it's a stretch. It's still possible. I'm not saying I believe it. That isn't how the justice system works. He didn't have to prove he is innocent. It is on the crown to prove guilt. Better that 100 murderers go free than one innocent man be convicted. Isn't that how our system works?

I do think it is possible that he was afraid. I think it is more likely that he felt a threat to his property and wanted to scare them off so shot twice in the air. But you can't convict on what you think is more likely. 

So he shoots twice in the air, sees two running away and sees Colton getting into the driver's seat and runs over to try to stop the vehicle which makes perfect sense. Awkwardly trying to turn off the engine the gun goes off accidently. 

So I think he did go get the gun to scare them off but that he wasn't necessarily afraid for his or his family's safety. 

If I am right, then he was guilty of manslaughter, but it could not be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The alternative being offered is that it was an execution style killing. He deliberately walked over to the SUV, pointed the gun at Colton's head, and pulled the trigger. 

I don't see anything in his behavior to suggest he is a cold-blooded murderer that wanted to kill an indian because he is racist. That is what you are saying I should believe but you offer zero evidence other than it is simply what you believe therefore because you believe it the jury should have convicted him. 

You ignore the inconclusive evidence on the gun, the unexplained bulge, the old ammunition, and the possibility of hangfire. Not likelihood, possibility. You can't convict on what you think was likely. That isn't the bar. 

While I can't put myself in the shoes of indigenous people on the prairies I do realize they have the right to be furious. Systemtic change has to happen but we still can't convict a man because racism is so common on the pairies as opposed to proving his guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 

JKR

Did Stanley say that the fatal shot was accidental before the forensic evidence regarding the bulge in the bullet became known? What did Stanley say happened before the forensic evidence was gathered? If his version of the events never significantly changed, I think there is enough reasonable doubt to find him not-guilty.

Unionist

Aristotleded24, on February 17 wrote:

The Stanley murder trial in Saskatchewan has highlighted racism in Saskatchewan. There is another secondary issue that has been exposed, and I wanted to start a different thread on the matter so as not to distract from the racism issue in the other thread.

Nice try, A24. But it seems that second-guessing the Stanley trial is far more fascinating than discussing more general systemic problems.

6079_Smith_W

I said real JKR because contrary to Paladin's charge I didn't mean an all-FN jury. After all, in 2001 a white jury convicted police officers Hatchen and Munson of driving someone out of town in an attempt to make him freeze to death. Looking at the evidence seriously is all I am asking for.

This jury did not, and it is not just my opinion. As I posted in an article in the other thread even a law professor recognized this as an anomaly based on race.

So yes, unfortunately it needs to be pointed out that holding a white man to task in the killing of an Indigenous person requires a real jury that takes its job seriously. And there are far more examples of this kind of racism over the border in the states.

As for care for farmers, Paladin, in fact I do. After all, the people they are most likely to kill with those guns are themselves or their family members. Sometimes by accident, sometimes not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-suicide-rural-guns/guns-help-e...

And FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron responded to the SARM resolution with the perfectly reasonable question of how prepared do people think they are to shoot someone in the head for theft.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-first-nations-shocked-by-mu...

 

 

6079_Smith_W

And Unionist, not sure about others' motives, but there is a good reason why I am refering to the Stanley trial. If he had used the defense that the gun-promoters in this thread are recommending he would have most certainly been convicted.

Somehow I don't think that point is getting through. Also not sure that they recognize that this argument puts them far to the right of even our Sask Party. Even they recognize that this throws the rule of law out the window, and creates a far more dangerous situation. There are plenty of people frustrated about theft, but most are doing the reasonable thing, like stringing up alarms and lights, and organizing community watch.

Promoting this argument is really supporting a fringe, violent, and essentially racist group. Unfortunately I think this theoretical discussion is failing to get that, and the real question of how willing and able people are to kill or be killed.

And the wisdom of having that option on the table at all.

 

6079_Smith_W

RCMP meeting in Biggar last night:

“People will probably sit and look at some of the numbers and say, ‘Well, that’s not right,’” Sgt. Colin Sawrenko told the 100-odd people gathered in the Biggar community hall Monday night.

According to the national police force’s data, however, property crime in the region rose between 2011 and 2016, but has since fallen back to 2011 levels. The number of reported crimes, Sawrenko said, is very low.

“I can’t allocate resources to a problem I don’t know exists,” he said before urging those present to watch out for “suspicious activity” and report it, either in person, on the phone, or using social media.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/rcmp-holds-town-hall-meeting-i...

It is worth reading the entire article. Again, I wouldn't assume this "farmers with firearms" group is acting in good faith.

They are raising funds for this guy on their facebook page, though. He was charged for shooting someone on Saturday  who was going through his vehicle. Police were on the scene within minutes:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-property-owner-shoots...

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually even under the circumstances if he had claimed self defense and had a real jury he would have been convicted too.

Please define a "real jury".

Quote:
I'm concerned about people getting killed, Paladin. Maybe we should remember that that was the end result here.

Yes and Ed Smith almost got shot in the head. What if the shooter decided to try and force his way into their house?  Should Mr Smith  be able to use a firearm for self-defense under that circumstance?

Quote:

By the way, there are some people who are trying to deal with these circumstances without reaching for their guns:

">http://www.ckom.com/2017/10/19/sask-cottage-owners-take-action-on-rural-...

Quote:
Residents in Emma Lake and Christopher Lake, north of Prince Albert, are starting a Rural Crime Watch — a community-driven crime reduction program supported by police.

Kind of like Gerald Stanley getting a phone call from his neighbour telling him they just got robbed and the theives were heading his way?

 

 

Shooting someone who's rifling through your vehicle sounds like murder or attempted murder to me.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Here's an interesting twitter thread written by someone who actually lives on the rural prairie - in the vicinity of the Boushie killing.

https://twitter.com/prairietara/status/970851952140562433

1. I live on a farm and have been thinking about the false perception of rural people that they are under siege from property crime. Since statistically, it has been proven that crime is not significantly raising, I wondered why they feel it is.

6079_Smith_W

#116, Paladin.

And Timebandit, she wrote a good letter around the time of the Stanley verdict pointing out how different it can be if you are a white person coming up to a stranger's door.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I also find it incredibly telling that those of us familiar with prairie culture are not the ones promoting gun use, and not "whatabouting" all over the place.

None of this is about property crime. That's just the dogwhistle.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

#116, Paladin.

And Timebandit, she wrote a good letter around the time of the Stanley verdict pointing out how different it can be if you are a white person coming up to a stranger's door.

 

Yes, she did. She's been bearing witness to the whole Stanley trial fiasco. I think it's an important perspective that she's bringing to the discussion - she's boots on the ground.

6079_Smith_W

Agreed. Somehow I get the feeling these three have either never had to deal with someone using a firearm to threaten or push others around, or someone acting stupid with one. Or perhaps, like that firearms group, they simply don't care, or support them.

Because these comments about what people are supposed to do in these situations display a whole lot of ignorance - like the practicality of firing into the dark at someone whose skill level and intent you do not know.

Paladin, I might not agree with you on all points, but I assumed you had some practical understanding about the use of firearms that was greater than my own. After this conversation I no longer think so.

In any case not that all people in the country are like that; they aren't. But you don't live there long without running into at least some of them.

 

 

Pondering

I wish there had been several indigenous people on the jury so that the jurors wouldn't be accused of racism. It seems only white jurors that convict are free of racism.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And Unionist, not sure about others' motives, but there is a good reason why I am refering to the Stanley trial. If he had used the defense that the gun-promoters in this thread are recommending he would have most certainly been convicted. 

That makes no sense. No one is suggesting that Stanley use a different defence or that anyone use a particular defence other than the truth. I don't think anyone is promoting guns either. Just acknowleging that farmers have them and have legitimate reasons for owning them. I'm not telling farmers they should arm themselves. I am just acknowleging their right to do so on their own property. I wish nobody had guns. I am particularly against hand guns. Paladin said a non hand gun would have been safer. That had Gerald been carrying a different kind of gun Colton would not have been shot. Isn't that the goal here? Preventing deaths?

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Somehow I don't think that point is getting through. Also not sure that they recognize that this argument puts them far to the right of even our Sask Party. Even they recognize that this throws the rule of law out the window, and creates a far more dangerous situation. There are plenty of people frustrated about theft, but most are doing the reasonable thing, like stringing up alarms and lights, and organizing community watch.  

What argument? No one here is suggesting that guns are a valid response to theft. 

The sole reason to use a gun is for the protection of oneself and one's family. There is no other excuse. 

The argument I'm reading is that when someone breaks into your home you have no way of knowing if they plan to just rob you or harm you or your family. Lots of robberies include violence even against the elderly. You mention a police officer who chose to leave his home. I guess he wasn't on the second floor and didn't have family in the house with him.

Being approached outdoors is a different situation and much less threatening unless the person has a gun. In that case they are threatening bodily harm.  

This thread is about crime in rural areas in general and the response to it. The facts as I see them are:

  • Farmers have guns. Not going to change. They have valid reasons for owning them and gun ownership is not illegal. 
  • Farms are isolated leading to farm families feeling vulnerable to violence and wary of strangers.
  • Racism is rampant
  • There has been a rash of thefts of expensive equipment and vehicles
  • Farmers are letting it be known that they are armed in the field to shoot at animals which is legitimate. 

Shooting someone for stealing, or to stop a theft, is never valid and will always be deemed murder. The individual must be an immediate and direct threat that cannot be escaped. Only then does shooting someone become validated. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

They are raising funds for this guy on their facebook page, though. He was charged for shooting someone on Saturday  who was going through his vehicle. Police were on the scene within minutes:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-property-owner-shoots...

I don't see how he will be able to use a self-defence or accident argument. They were not in his home. Without that he will be convicted.

I found this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-defence-what-s-acceptable-under-canad...

CBC News: You hear a noise and go downstairs in the middle of the night and find a burglar, and you can't tell if he's armed. Legally, what are your options?

"Your dwelling house seems to be the property you're allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.

Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."

Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.  

"This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."

"You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."

Nichols says the words "as much force as is necessary" are one of the things taken into account by judges.

"It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person," Cohen says.

"There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations," Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force.

"Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether," she says.

Cohen says the judge's decision revolves around the specifics of the individual situation.

"Every scenario in criminal law tends to be very unique, so that's a judge's job is to sift through the facts and make a determination based on them, and all kinds of factors play into it," Cohen says.

Judges will give the occupant of the dwelling the benefit of the doubt regardless of the race of the intruder. 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin, I might not agree with you on all points, but I assumed you had some practical understanding about the use of firearms that was greater than my own. After this conversation I no longer think so.

You may very well have a better practical understanding than me, I never claimed to understand firearms better than you. You are a pretty smart dude!

If we're judging practical experience  I've been shot at twice when I was unarmed as a civilian, once by a group of FN (actually twice but it was across a river so more harassing fire) and once by a white farmer. Also had a white farmer shove a shotgun in my face.

At work I've been shot at a number of times (rifles, machineguns, rockets, mortars) and have had to shoot at people sadly. There's also been a few times where I've been legally allowed to use deadly force but I made a judgement call and held off which saved some lives, pretty glad about that.   I feel my combined 3 decades of shooting including 2 decades of training to shoot professionally (plus the examples I mentioned) give me a better than average CBC/Facebook post commentor practical idea about firearms however as I said I'm far from an expert and maybe you do grasp that stuff more than me and that's totally cool.

 

Timebandit wrote:

I also find it incredibly telling that those of us familiar with prairie culture are not the ones promoting gun use, and not "whatabouting" all over the place.

None of this is about property crime. That's just the dogwhistle.

I believe that some people in the prairies aren't promoting gun use however there seems to be just as many that are, just maybe not on this forum.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

My point, Paladin, is that we have some pontificating in this thread as to what it's like in Montreal - pro tip, Biggar isn't anything like Montreal - or that the pervasive racism on the prairies is being overstated by those who are in a position to have observed it.

We've also got a certain amount of gun bafflegab from you. I dunno, you may be exactly what you claim to be, but you sure as shit don't sound like anyone I've ever met from either the military (I've made a couple of docs on military subjects and had contact with military professionals as participants) or law enforcement (did casual instruction work for RCMP Depot division for 9 years).

Anyway, this thread has been a frustrating exercise in what pitch of dogwhistle works best for Babble at this point in time. I used to come to babble to feel hopeful about the state of the Canadian left, but I can honestly say that you lot have left me more demoralized than I've ever been.

6079_Smith_W

Just curious Paladin, because even the cop that was mentioned, who I figured had more experience than both of us, said he wouldn't try to face down someone in a situation like that. And based on my experiences having guns pointed at me (not as much as you), and seeing them go off by mistake and stupidity, and knowing people who have been killed by them, and hearing people threaten to use them, and just considering the circumstances we are talking about here, the notion of carrying weapons with the idea that you might use them on people seems nothing but a recipe for injury and death to me.

Or the position of someone who wanted that kind of power over other people. Like I said (and like Timebandit said) this gun group isn't being honest when they claim this is about crime.

Given that you actually do know what guns are capable of, clearly you are aware of that, so I am  guessing your support for this is that you agree with this firearms group that it is actually a good idea. It is a completely fucked up idea in my opinion.

And based on the vote at SARM, they managed to bend the ear of 93 percent of those elected representatives, and get them to agree that the law doesn't matter. So you are right there are some who support it. That doesn't make it any less fucked up.

And Pondering, I guess the RCMP and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and the Criminal Code have it all wrong. You should probably give them a call and set them straight.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But it seems that second-guessing the Stanley trial is far more fascinating than discussing more general systemic problems.

To be fair, we could discuss those any time.  We don't need to wait for an event like this and then try to stir the two together.

The issue is that it's always problematic to try to apply a general case to a specific one.  Racism, for example, is a general case, but an individual driver who's a POC and drives over the speed limit is a specific one.  If that POC is pulled over, is it because of the general case?  Or the specific?  It could be either, of course.  It's one equation with two unknowns, and you can't definitively solve for that.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And Pondering, I guess the RCMP and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and the Criminal Code have it all wrong. You should probably give them a call and set them straight.

I don't recall disagreeing with them so you will have to be more specific. 

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:

My point, Paladin, is that we have some pontificating in this thread as to what it's like in Montreal - pro tip, Biggar isn't anything like Montreal - or that the pervasive racism on the prairies is being overstated by those who are in a position to have observed it.

I see what you mean. My experience in prairie matters is 2nd and 3rd hand from people I know there (safe to say probably biased)  and what I read in various news articles. I understand some of you live out there so more than happy to accept your views as very factual and accurate.

Quote:
We've also got a certain amount of gun bafflegab from you. I dunno, you may be exactly what you claim to be, but you sure as shit don't sound like anyone I've ever met from either the military (I've made a couple of docs on military subjects and had contact with military professionals as participants) or law enforcement (did casual instruction work for RCMP Depot division for 9 years).

Sorry if I've came across as pretentious or incomprehensible with gun crap. I actually thought I was trying to clear up some of the confusion with firearms and confusing firearms act. Even police and the courts barely understand it. 

Can you explain what you mean I don't sound like anyone you've met from the military? Do you mean I'm more of an asshole or more nicer or not actually in the military because?  

Quote:
but I can honestly say that you lot have left me more demoralized than I've ever been.

Sorry. View myself as all over the political map which probably doesn't translate well here.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just curious Paladin, because even the cop that was mentioned, who I figured had more experience than both of us, said he wouldn't try to face down someone in a situation like that. And based on my experiences having guns pointed at me (not as much as you), and seeing them go off by mistake and stupidity, and knowing people who have been killed by them, and hearing people threaten to use them, and just considering the circumstances we are talking about here, the notion of carrying weapons with the idea that you might use them on people seems nothing but a recipe for injury and death to me.

I've seen cops say stuff like if someone breaks into your house it's better to kill them then just wound them because then they'll file a lawsuit against you.  I totally believe the cop you were speaking to both said that and believes that. Other cops will give drastically different answers.  Of late there's been a few cops who were busted illegally collecting weapons, I have a feeling they would be big time castle doctrine guys.

I agree introducing guns in to the mix is incredibly dangerous and there is a very significant chance of someone having their gun used against them. The same as having knives used against their owners. While I don't exactly believe it for the sake of the point I want to make I'll agree that guns in a home increase the risk of accidental shootings and firearms being used in suicide.  For me it comes down to personal choice. If farmers feel they're being threatened in their homes and feel it's getting worse and feel the RCMP response time is poor then I think it's their business if they want to keep a firearm around for self-defnse. 

I haven't had time to read about that firearm group yet. Are they  driving around town with guns?  If so I'm not so sure I'd be quick to approve (support wise).  With the amount of vehicles getting broken into out your way those farmers might be putting a lot of hard to get guns into the hands of criminals which will compound the problem because then more robbers might be armed with guns.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

It's the cop Aristotleded24 mentioned actually, who was giving his professional advice about what to do.

I agree some of it might be that you and others just don't appreciate the virulent kind of gun culture, and the racist divide out here (though there are nuts and racists everywhere).

But really, the fact you seem to have some experience with guns and what they can do makes me even more astonished at your callous disregard for how dangerous they are, and what stupid and hateful people do with them. And from the way you talk it doesn't seem like you are just naive about it.

A couple of friends of my sisters wound up being people that someone found it was "better to kill". They happened to be staying in the wrong apartment one night when someone showed up to settle a drug debt with their hosts, who were away for the night.

For that and a number of other reasons I find this casual talk about shooting people, self defense, and personal choice kind of distasteful. Especially from someone I would think should know better.

That there are some people, and some cops  who could care less about who they shoot if they can get away with it doesn't surprise me. Doesn't make it just another valid option for cops and gun owners.

It isn't just their business to pick up a weapon in self defense. It is against the law.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
I haven't had time to read about that firearm group yet. Are they  driving around town with guns?  If so I'm not so sure I'd be quick to approve (support wise).  With the amount of vehicles getting broken into out your way those farmers might be putting a lot of hard to get guns into the hands of criminals which will compound the problem because then more robbers might be armed with guns.

There has been no suggestion that they are driving around with guns. The problem is they want to protect their property from theft with guns. I'm sure we all agree that is unacceptable and must remain illegal. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually, people are driving around with guns for protection. This article has been posted a couple of times already in this thread:

More than half a dozen other farmers have sent CBC photos of the firearms they are now keeping in the cabs of their trucks and farm machinery. A number of farmers say it takes the RCMP between 30 minutes and a hour to reach them in an emergency.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fiske-crime-harvest-guns-1.37707...

6079_Smith_W

Actually, people are driving around with guns for protection. This article has been posted a couple of times already in this thread:

More than half a dozen other farmers have sent CBC photos of the firearms they are now keeping in the cabs of their trucks and farm machinery. A number of farmers say it takes the RCMP between 30 minutes and a hour to reach them in an emergency.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fiske-crime-harvest-guns-1.37707...

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Actually, people are driving around with guns for protection. This article has been posted a couple of times already in this thread:

More than half a dozen other farmers have sent CBC photos of the firearms they are now keeping in the cabs of their trucks and farm machinery. A number of farmers say it takes the RCMP between 30 minutes and a hour to reach them in an emergency.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fiske-crime-harvest-guns-1.37707...

So back to the start: how do you address the challenge of slow police response times given the small popluation spread out over a large area?

6079_Smith_W

Not to say there isn't a problem, but clearly from that meeting monday night it seems someone isn't telling the cops. The province did add new officers in the fall. There are people increasing neighbourhood watches. A couple of days after the Boushie trial Ralph Goodale shows up and pledges federal action on rural crime concerns.

So again, I wouldn't say there is no problem, but neither would I say nothing is being done. And frankly complaints about crime is just a foil for the gun lobby.  Settlers casting themselves as the victims is a 140 years old story here.

 

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

There has been no suggestion that they are driving around with guns. The problem is they want to protect their property from theft with guns. I'm sure we all agree that is unacceptable and must remain illegal. 

I'd say yes and no. It can be a bit of a grey area.  Canadians are allowed to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force with firearms for purposes of self-defnese.  Now you say protecting your property, I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.  Someone shooting at a theif going through their garage or vehicle or stealing a bike? Yea that's not allowed. But what about when someones wants to steal property in your house and you're between the theif and your big screen TV?

Should you just move out of their way and hope they leave you alone and just take the TV? Hope they don't assault you in the process? Just run away? What if you have 4 small children and a wheelchair bound parent living with you?  There's lots of what if's.   My view, which seems backed up by the court, is that if someone is forcing their way into your house and you feel that your life is in danger then you can use deadly force.

Now there's cases where a teenager has busted into someones home and got the shit beat out of them for it and guess what happened. The home owner was charged with assault because the judge felt the teenager didn't pose a threat. But what if it's you Pondering and 4x  250pound teenagers kick your door down. Just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean they aren't a threat. Are you confident sitting at the kitchen table calling the RCMP hoping they leave you alone? Do you think they'll let you call the RCMP?

The argument is property isn't worth someones life. That's fine but the counter argument is that your life can become at risk very very quickly in a simple B&E.

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But really, the fact you seem to have some experience with guns and what they can do makes me even more astonished at your callous disregard for how dangerous they are, and what stupid and hateful people do with them. And from the way you talk it doesn't seem like you are just naive about it.

Not callous at all. I've had to try and hold parts of a young child together while waiting for medical help. I've seen how deadly guns and vehicles can be.

I've seen good good and bad when it comes to firearms. For every bad story, say a child injured by accident or suicide, there's stories (albeit the majority from the US that I've read) of someone using a gun to protect themselves, either by shooting or detering somone.

i think I have a balanced view from both sides and I lean towards trusting average Canadians to be responsible.

Quote:

It isn't just their business to pick up a weapon in self defense. It is against the law.

It depends on the context.

Driving around with a gun in your vehicle isn't illegal as long as it's stored in the vehicle with the proper storage guidelines and you have a liscence.

Driving around with it for self-defense is illegal but I bet if you were on your way to your hunting spot and ambushed by a group of people and you used your gun for self-defense it wouldn't be illegal.

Whats the difference? That falls to the judge and jury to decide.

I think it's disingenuous to use a blanket statement like it's illegal to use a gun for self-defnese, there's a lot of grey areas.

Paladin1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So back to the start: how do you address the challenge of slow police response times given the small popluation spread out over a large area?

That's the big question. More police? That's going to cost money (more taxes?). Plus I bet people begin to complain about seeing too many cops.

Random roadside stops to search for contraban weapons? That violates peoples rights.

My house can be inspected at anytime by the RCMP because I legally own firearms but police need a warrant to go into a convicted criminals house. What about searching the houses of people convicted of violent crimes or firearms charges?  I like that idea but I'm sure that too is a violation of someones rights (except in law abiding citizens cases).

 

 

6079_Smith_W

And you think adding a gun into the mix lowers the risk?

I'm just going to keep saying this: you do not know what you are talking about. It is against the law to use a firearm for that purpose; our justice minister had to point that out last year. The police point out that it is no solution to crime; it is a good way to get yourself or someone else killed.

And if you want to see your plan in action you only have to look at the shocking record of gun violence south of the border. I understand that you might see that as an acceptable risk for the freedom to bear arms. There are some who think that trumps a school full of dead kids. I don't.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, people are driving around with guns for protection. This article has been posted a couple of times already in this thread:

More than half a dozen other farmers have sent CBC photos of the firearms they are now keeping in the cabs of their trucks and farm machinery. A number of farmers say it takes the RCMP between 30 minutes and a hour to reach them in an emergency.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fiske-crime-harvest-guns-1.37707...

On their own property not on public roads. If they do it on public roads they  can be arrested. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

How do you think they get from one part of their property to another, Pondering? you travel the grids, which are public. It's not like you put roads through every part of your property. I'm pretty sure they're not using pixie dust.

But do tell us how it's done in Montreal, I'm sure it's exactly the same out here.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

There has been no suggestion that they are driving around with guns. The problem is they want to protect their property from theft with guns. I'm sure we all agree that is unacceptable and must remain illegal. 

I'd say yes and no. It can be a bit of a grey area.  Canadians are allowed to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force with firearms for purposes of self-defnese.  Now you say protecting your property, I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.  Someone shooting at a theif going through their garage or vehicle or stealing a bike? Yea that's not allowed. But what about when someones wants to steal property in your house and you're between the theif and your big screen TV?

Should you just move out of their way and hope they leave you alone and just take the TV? Hope they don't assault you in the process? Just run away? What if you have 4 small children and a wheelchair bound parent living with you?  There's lots of what if's.   My view, which seems backed up by the court, is that if someone is forcing their way into your house and you feel that your life is in danger then you can use deadly force.

Yes that is the law and it gives ample room for the self-defence argument. What the farmers want is the right to protect property not life. This is the new case I am referring to:

http://calgarysun.com/news/crime/rural-homeowner-detained-by-okotoks-rcm...

RCMP in Alberta have taken a rural homeowner into custody after a shooting that police allege happened when he confronted two people rummaging through his vehicles.Police say members from the Okotoks detachment were called to the property at around 5:30 a.m. Saturday. They say that during the confrontation between the owner and the suspects, an unknown number of shots were fired before the suspects fled.

They didn't break into his home. There is no suggestion that he was at risk. There is no mention of race so my bet is they are all white. If the one shot was FN I believe this would be held up as another case of racism. 

Some landowners have noted that calling police is ineffective because officers are far away and criminals are long gone by the time the authorities arrive.

French, however, noted police arrived quickly in Saturday’s incident.

“It’s my understanding that in this instance, specifically, from the time that we received the dispatch, we were on scene from within five to seven minutes,” he said.

That's disingenuous. They only reacted that quickly because it was a shooting. If he had called to report people going through his car it would have taken a lot longer. 

More from the same article:

Meanwhile, an Alberta man, Daniel Wayne Newsham, will face a manslaughter trial in December after police allege he was involved in a fatal collision that happened when he pursued a truck stolen from a rural property in August 2016. Stanley Dick, who was the lone occupant of the truck, died in the crash.

In another case in Alberta in 2009, farmer Brian Knight was convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for hitting a man with light birdshot in March 2009. The man was trying to steal an ATV from Knight’s property near Tees.

Knight was sentenced to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends. The Alberta Court of Appeal later ruled that the punishment did not fit the crime and instead gave Knight a suspended sentence.

Balfour Der, who represented Knight at the time, said that from a defence perspective, property owners do have a right to defend their property against trespassers and people who are trying to damage their property.

“One of the issues always is whether there’s excessive force being used, which is a key component or factor for us to look at,” he said. “Because while you do have a right to defend your property, there are limits in how far you can go to defend and your actions have to be reasonable in the circumstances.”

That is why Gerald's defence worked. He shot in the air not at the men. That was considered reasonable. The unexplained bulge in the bullet was sufficient to conclude it COULD have been an accident not that it was an accident. He didn't have to prove that it was an accident, just that it was possible. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Only if you take his word for it. The other witnesses said the bullets were whistling past them. His word against theirs, and they had less to lose.

But I'm sure he was the one telling the more accurate story. [/sarcasm]

JKR

Timebandit wrote:

Only if you take his word for it. The other witnesses said the bullets were whistling past them. His word against theirs, and they had less to lose.

But I'm sure he was the one telling the more accurate story. [/sarcasm]

But what did the forensic evidence show?

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And you think adding a gun into the mix lowers the risk?

No.

Quote:
I'm just going to keep saying this: you do not know what you are talking about. It is against the law to use a firearm for that purpose; our justice minister had to point that out last year.

 I'm sorry but you're wrong.

The Criminal Code of Canada very specifically allows self-defense and defense of property in Sections 34 and 35.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9

Quote:

Defence of Person

Marginal note:Defence — use or threat of force

  • 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

    • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

    • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

    • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

  • Marginal note:Factors

    (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

    • (a) the nature of the force or threat;

    • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

    • (c) the person’s role in the incident;

    • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

    • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

    • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

    • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

    • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

    • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

  • Marginal note:No defence

    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34;
  • 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F);
  • 2012, c. 9, s. 2.

Previous Version

Defence of Property

Marginal note:Defence — property

  • 35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

    • (a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;

    • (b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person

      • (i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,

      • (ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or

      • (iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;

    • (c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of

      • (i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or

      • (ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and

    • (d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

  • Marginal note:No defence

    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.

  • Marginal note:No defence

    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 35;
  • 2012, c. 9, s. 2.

Whether you use a firearm is immaterial. You might get charged with something associated with firearms such as impropper storage of a firearm or discharging a firearm within city limits but there is no law against using a firearm for self-defense purposes.

I can find examples of Canadian firearm owners using firearms for self-defense where they were not charged if you wish.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yet that nice young man in Alberta who shot someone on Saturday for going through his car got arrested.

And Gerald Stanley got arrested. How did that happen if it is perfectly legal?

We should cut through the crap here. That section, which gives a judge or prosecutor the authority to allow an exception on the grounds of self defense, does not change the law, which is that it is illegal to shoot someone.

It is in no way a get out of jail free card.

And it is illegal to carry a gun and claim you are doing it for self defense without the paperwork, based a specific and imminent threat, and no other means of defense- which is more rare than that alleged hangfire. Not just on the road. On your own property too. And claiming you just have it there to shoot gophers and it just  happened to be there when you decided to play Rambo? I suppose whether that washes or not depends on a few things like whether the judge and jury buys it.

But I expect it depends on a few other things too.

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yet that nice young man in Alberta who shot someone on Saturday for going through his car got arrested.

Has anyone suggested this was self-defense?

Quote:

And Gerald Stanley got arrested. How did that happen if it is perfectly legal?

Police show up and charge people then let the courts figure it out. Police don't dertemine guilt like proving self-defense or murder but arrested people on reasonable grounds that a crime may have been committed.

Quote:
We should cut through the crap here. That section, which gives a judge or prosecutor the authority to allow an exception on the grounds of self defense, does not change the law, which is that it is illegal to shoot someone.

Okay but you said it's illegal to shoot someone in self-defense. It's not. Lets agree to semantics.

Quote:
And it is illegal to carry a gun and claim you are doing it for self defense without the paperwork

Absolutely right here.

Quote:
And claiming you just have it there to shoot gophers and it just  happened to be there when you decided to play Rambo? I suppose whether that washes or not depends on a few things like whether the judge and jury buys it.

Bingo!

Pages