Crime In Rural Areas

Quote:

And no one is arguing in favour of letting people steal whatever they want. How many times to I need to point out this is about avoiding people getting killed.

If everyone must avoid being killed, how is that not going to allow people to steal what they want?  What, if not non-existant police or "foolhardy" homeowners is going to discourage them from just showing up at the door with the biggest loot sack they can find?

This thread was initially started in the hope of discussing ways by which rural residents could deal with being robbed.  Any thoughts on how we can prevent rural crime like that?  Other than "offer them help loading your possessions in the truck"?

Magoo, Have you been following this thread?

Do you really need me to point out, again,  the aspects of dealing with crime we have talked about other than shooting people?

Not to be rude, but this is involving a lot of having to repeat things, and a lot of having to correct things that were not said. Might I recommend some note-taking?

You posted the article on the RCMP meeting in Perdue. Did you read all that was said there?

The notion that the only option other than murdering people is handing everything over to them is absurd. I know this seems to be all some want to talk about, but there actually was a good deal said on the topic of dealing with crime.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You posted the article on the RCMP meeting in Perdue. Did you read all that was said there?

The notion that the only option other than murdering people is handing everything over to them is absurd. I know this seems to be all some want to talk about, but there actually was a good deal said on the topic of dealing with crime.

Of course proper security is first but few people live in bunkers like the Hell's Angels. Neighbourhood Watch is good too but it is not the job farmers to patrol to protect thieves. 

Once someone breaches the walls of your home those solutions have failed. Are you suggesting people should not have the right to self-defence, or that they not be allowed to plea self-defence unless they are physically harmed? 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Someone really got killed because of this craziness. And someone else just got shot last weekend for rifling through someone's car.

Yup. It all started with a car load of young adults who decided to  put innocent people at risk with their drinking and driving and then tresspass on someones property with the intent of stealing their stuff.

Driving around with guns- somewhat different debate.

Quote:

And if I am pressing people on whether they really understand what they are saying about killing over a car or a quad or a TV, and taking a risk -

I see people who feel threatened.  Yes we've covered shooting someone whos stealing music CDs out of your car is wrong but the grey area starts when the person is moving towards your house, or the homeowners feel threatened by the presence of someone on their property.

Quote:

It isn't that I don't understand rural crime; I have some experience and understand the frustration

I recognize this.

Smith, you are presenting strawman arguments and avoiding questions. 

Gerald did not plead self-defence. There was no justification of the shooting. It was not to protect life or property.

In the second case in which someone shot at people rummaging in a car, I think he will be charged and convicted because I don't think he can claim self-defence or warning shots. 

No one has supported the notion that people should be able to use a gun to protect property.

The only valid reason to use a gun is to protect yourself from physical harm. I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that statement.

The question then becomes, what constitutes enough of a physical threat to justify shooting at a person?

If someone is willing to break into my home while I am in it that is a home invasion not robbery.  I assume they are prepared or intend to harm me. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Drinking and driving justifies killing someone now?

Strawman again.

</p> <p>[quote wrote:

At Gerald Stanley's farm one of them was shot in the back of the head while he was doing nothing.

By accident and they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Did anyone "deserve" to die, gone over that a bunch but no. People are damn lucky those people in the car didn't hit and kill anyone and they should be hit with a handful of charges themselves IMO.

Quote:

You are right it is a different debate. One is about dealing with rural crime. The other is about people who don't think the law should apply to them, even when it comes to murder.

So people who tresspass, steal and assault people aren't acting like the law doesn't apply to them?

Quote:

These people aren't asking for guns as a defense when their lives are in danger. They want to be able to shoot people they suspect of stealing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charged...

I read the article and no one said "I want to shoot people suspected of stealing".  Maybe they want to make a citizens arrest? Point a gun at someone and say don't move until the police arrive.

Well why did you even bring up their drunk driving and tresspass? If they didn't want to die they shouldn't have gone there? Or they showed reckless disregard so they deserved it? If I got it wrong what did you mean?

I didn't say people who steal shouldn't be prosecuted. What I said was that the consequence should not be death, and by pushing this whole crime question into picking up guns, you are increasing the likelihood of someone getting killed.

I don't think you quite appreciate what that means. And that is why I continue to ask pointed questions that you think are condescending. This is ultimately about people getting killed, much as some of you want to dance around it.

This isn't about reducing crime; it is about upping the ante to assault and homocide.

No, actually shooting someone is a serious example of  the problem of crime in rural areas. It is far more serious than theft. And it is a crime.

That alleged shooter in Alberta? He is charged with the crime of aggravated assault. He isn't a victim; he is the accused.

And did you read the articles? It isn't "skyrocketing" here in Saskatchewan. It rose over a few years and dropped back down to 2011 levels. RCMP at these meetings are saying the complaints don't match their statistics, and they can't deal with a problem they aren't told about.

There have been a number of things brought up in this thread to deal with the problem of theft in rural areas. That doesn't seem to be what some of you are interested in. As for these gun owners, All I see is them thinking the law should not apply to them.

As for those skyrocketing crime rates, even before they dropped again in 2016 they weren't exactly skyrocketing:

You know, I’m hearing a whole lot of talk about an epidemic of rural crime here – and zero evidence.

That terrifying trio of masked gunmen stalking rural roads last fall?

There were never any arrests. In fact, it didn’t take long for residents, and the RCMP (according to one reliable source), to start questioning whether the whole thing was made up.

Another Kindersley area farmer disputed the armed-combine stories, saying the whole thing was just some kind of weird inside joke.

And six months prior to defending the motion to allow farmers to kill trespassers or would-be thieves on their property, SARM president Ray Orb told the Canadian Press that he really wasn’t hearing anything from scared rural residents, except for what he saw on the news.

https://oursask.ca/2017/03/21/its-okay-kindersley-you-really-dont-need-t...

And the article referenced regarding how many complaints there really have been, also worth reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/22/saskatchewan-rcmp_n_12138612.html

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 These people aren't asking for guns as a defense when their lives are in danger. They want to be able to shoot people they suspect of stealing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charged...

Which no one here agrees with. All we are defending it the right to protect oneself from bodily harm. 

You want people to assume the intent of a home invasion is purely to steal property and does not carry any risk to the homeowner. That just isn't true. Some home invasions do result in injury to the occupants. Women in their eighties have been raped by young men. They didn't wear a sign. 

I and others are maintaining that the act of home invasion is a threat to the physical safety of the occupants regardless of the perpetrator's intent because that cannot be known by the occupant. The act itself constitutes a declaration of hostile intent and justifies fear of personal injury on the part of the occupants. When someone invades someone else's home they are putting themselves at risk. 

So let me get this straight - you want people in Regina to be able to settle disputes with guns too?  I hate to break the obvious to you, but that will make firearms offences rise even higher.

Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

I know we can't be letting these CD thieves get away with it, but maybe you should think this one through a bit more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/latest-gang-shooting-in-hobbema-l...

Quote:

Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

Does this story describe the shootings you're referring to?  Because it sounds to me like someone fired a gun at the house, from outside.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is against the law to discharge a firearm in any city or residential area a. In my experience that include s RMs anywhere near a city or town, and places with residential lots. Bullets can travel a long way with deadly force, sorry. And my point Magoo is that bullets travel through walls. .

Sure is against the law. I'd expect to be charged and proably have my liscence and firearms taken away. Pay a lawyer $10'000+.

Bullets sure do go through walls. They can also stop rapists and murderers dead in their tracks. Or scare them away. And impropperly stored firearms can kill or injure kids.  Lots of decisions to make.

It's a rabbit hole but I'd like to treat DUIs as attempted murder, or attempted manslaughter? Whatever it's called. It's basically randomly firing a gun with a 2000 pound bullet.

Pondering wrote:

Yet again you make no distinction between theft and physical harm. You seem to have the attitude that intruders never harm anyone.

Actually you are begging the question.

Gerald Stanley didn't make that distinction. That fellow in Okotoks didn't either, nor are the people who support him and are asking to be their own law. Same for municipal reps at the SARM convention.

For that matter, the law doesn't make that distinction either. It says you aren't allowed to carry a weapon as a defense against people. The fact a judge might give you a break in an extreme situation doesn't change that law. And using a cute trick like saying it's just to shoot gophers doesn't change it either.

So I am not actually the one making false assumptions here.

You and others here seem to be ignoring the reality that if you arm twitchy self-entitled white people (especially ones who assume the absolute worst - that others are potential sickos and torturers) what you are setting up is a recipe for murder.

That's not solving or reducing crime.

I know Unionist thinks so.

I'd be happy with them recognizing the law applies to them just like it does to everyone else.

Pondering wrote:

Yet again you make no distinction between theft and physical harm. You seem to have the attitude that intruders never harm anyone.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  Actually you are begging the question.

Gerald Stanley didn't make that distinction. That fellow in Okotoks didn't either, nor are the people who support him and are asking to be their own law. Same for municipal reps at the SARM convention. 

Concerning specific events different outcomes will result depending on the details. Gerald Stanley did make that defence. The gun was to protect life and limb not property. That justified his having the gun in his hand. In Gerald's case he claimed the gun went off accidently when he tried to turn the vehicle off. In the second case I don't think the shooter could use a similar defence. No one here supports the people who want to justify using weapons to protect property. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  For that matter, the law doesn't make that distinction either. It says you aren't allowed to carry a weapon as a defense against people. The fact a judge might give you a break in an extreme situation doesn't change that law. And using a cute trick like saying it's just to shoot gophers doesn't change it either. 

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

"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.

The law is not absolute. People are allowed to carry guns in their own home for self-defence if they discover an intruder in their home or trying to get into their home. It is even legal to shoot the intruder if circumstances warrant it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 You and others here seem to be ignoring the reality that if you arm twitchy self-entitled white people (especially ones who assume the absolute worst - that others are potential sickos and torturers) what you are setting up is a recipe for murder.  

Self-defence is not murder. The act of breaking into a home is threatening the homeowner with violence. The person breaking in is putting their own life in danger. It is not up to the victim, the homeowner, to place themselves at risk to protect intruders. 

That is never ever going to change because the right to self-defence cannot be removed. People cannot be expected to potentially sacrifice their lives when threatened. 

You may well consider it a smokescreen to claim carrying a weapon is to kill rodents that threaten a farm, and you may be right, but unless it can be proven otherwise the farmer does have a right to be armed on their own property to hunt or to shoot magpies, gophers or other animals. If they are then threatened by a human they do have the right to shoot in self-defence. 

Potential thieves have been warned. Rather than arguing that it is illegal to shoot at people for stealing it would be better to warn young people to stay the hell off of farmer's property because they could be shot. If, at some later point, it is proven that the farmer committed murder, the intruder will still be dead. 

Trying to intimidate farmers not to have guns won't work. There is no chance a gun law will be passed in the foreseeable future that bars farmers from owning guns or from having them loaded on their person on their own farm even if they are just shooting at skunks while harvesting. 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-small-animals-are-killed-when-harvesting-...

And let me tell you it is horrible having to stop to clean out the animal remains. Which is why I keep a Gun in the Combine or tractor. Partly to scare the animals, sometimes to kill them before they enter the combine, the big reason is because I am not crushing another dogs skull with my boots because he was loose and hiding in a corn field and was torn in half, and crying.

That comment had nothing to do with justifying having a gun as a smokescreen. There are valid reasons for farmers to have guns and to carry them. It's impossible to prove otherwise. If they are threatened while they have the gun in their possession it is legal for them to use it for self-defence because barring it would make no sense. 

If you dive into a pool without checking for rocks it is not the fault of the rocks for being there. If a thief breaks into an occupied home it is a home invasion therefore it is valid for the occupants to be afraid and to assume the invader means them harm. Otherwise, they would wait until the home was unoccupied before trying to steal. 

I commend you for being unafraid when people break into your home but I would be terrified. I'm happy to live in an extremely secure building on an upper floor. If I lived somewhere more isolated I would want a gun for self-defence and I would shoot at anyone who broke into my home while I was in it rather than give them a chance to gain the upper hand. If I returned home and saw evidence my home had been broken into I would run away not investigate. 

You are outraged at the Stanley verdict because to you the fact that Gerald was holding the gun close to Colton's head and Colton died from a bullet from that gun is sufficient proof to call it murder or at the very least manslaughter but it isn't that simple.

There are specific points of law that allowed Gerald to get the gun and load it for the purpose of self-defence. There are specific points of law that allow farmers to have guns to shoot at animals on their property. 

What do you propose? Making it illegal to use a gun in self-defence on your own property? 

Stanley didn't make that distinction; because he shot a man in the back of the head who was doing nothing to him.

His defense was that it was an accident, not delf defense, but he didn't use that gun because of any imminent threat to his or anyone else's person. And he still killed someone. So this supposed rule Pondering keeps bringing up has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, for the reasons I explained in my last post, and for this reason, which I am explaining again.

It is actually meaningless except in the context of a judge deciding whether you get an excuse from committing assault or homocide. Unlike the way these farmers and their supporters spin it, it isn't a case of deciding ahead of time how far you can let your gun hang out of your pocket while you are on patrol for bad guys.

That fellow from Okotoks thought he knew, and he thought wrong. Or who knows, maybe he'll get the right jury.

Go back and read what I said at 229.

I'm not just talking about Gerald Stanley. None of this is about just needing the freedom to defend your life in an emergency.

And "why someone jumps your fence"? What does that even mean? Are you seriously that paranoid? That's a good argument for keeping guns OUT of people's hands altogether if you ask me.

Yup. Pretty twitchy. And although we don't know who all these cops are, we do know who proportionally is more likely to be a victim.

"They shot him because they let their fear of a black man with a hammer (8.5 metres) away overcome what should have been a compassionate and humane response," Shime said in his closing arguments.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/loku-inquest-closing-arguments-1.4...

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/08/16/how-many-black-men-have-be...

https://nowtoronto.com/news/toronto-cold-cases-have-a-race-problem/

And a fence is a solid object that might stop a ball or keep your dog in the yard. The confusing part is you floating the idea that anyone who passes through it might be coming to kill you. It's ridiculous, and yes, anyone who seriously thinks that way should not have a gun.

Quote:

And a fence is a solid object that might stop a ball or keep your dog in the yard. The confusing part is you floating the idea that anyone who passes through it might be coming to kill you.

Well, if they come through it they're probably a ghost, and I don't even know what a ghost wants.

Everyone else has to climb over it, as though it were some natural phenomenon like a mountain range, and not some obvious thing that says "you're not invited here".

Again, just like a lock.  If you have to pick a lock, that might mean you're supposed to stay out.  But what say you?

I have a lock on my door.  I'm curious what kind of message it reasonably sends.  Like a fence.  What could a fence possibly mean?

Could either say "you're not allowed here"?  That's what I'm asking.

People jump fences all the time and don't get shot for it, Magoo. And very few rural home quarters have fences around them, so I am not sure how that relates. It is actually legal to open someone's gate and walk up to the door.

I know you were just making a turn of phrase; the real point is assuming that everyone who walks up to your door might be there to kill you is paranoid. It is also what got that former police officer walking up to buy a can of gas shot and killed.

And I repeat, it is an argument to keep guns out of people's hands altogether, though you probably didn't intend it that way.

deleted off topic

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering I came across this video of a woman being held hostage in a B&E situation  out west. The men went on to murder someone. I thought you might be interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjUzkVrEV1o

Thank-you, and for the other video as well. Good thing there were no guns in the house. 

I also feel better about never opening my door unless someone calls first or I am expecting them. There is no need for a chain on my door. Those things are useless anyway. 

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering I came across this video of a woman being held hostage in a B&E situation  out west. The men went on to murder someone. I thought you might be interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjUzkVrEV1o

Thank-you, and for the other video as well. Good thing there were no guns in the house. 

I also feel better about never opening my door unless someone calls first or I am expecting them. There is no need for a chain on my door. Those things are useless anyway. 

You're welcome Pondering. You're a great example of how someone can disagree with something but still be very open minded about discussion.

I used to never think twice about opening my door for strangers but now I'll look to see who it is and if I get a weird feeling talk to them through the window away from the door.

Guns can be good for home protection but so too can thick doors, sturdy locks, strong or reinforced windows, security system and a healthy suspicious mentality.  Even a few seconds can give a home owner time to call the police.

I may have posted this video before (last video for a while promise) but here's a video of how fast someone can get through the door. Had the tenant not had a gun it's easy to imagine they'd be hacked to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT1JjwuAxmQ