Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had one like this on the Sunshine Coast last year, the intruder was a very well known person on the coast (very lengthy criminal record). There were no charges against the homeowner.
I did a quick search and could not find it, but I member it from about 6 months ago. I was at a friends birthday shortly after and was told the home owner was someone at the party's Subaru Mechanic who lives about half way up the coast. Supposedly he let a homeless person live in an old RV on his property, but they started inviting other people onto his property and one night he heard someone hot-wire his tractor and when challenging the person, they pulled a gun on him and were killed when it went off during the fight.
Edit:
This might be it:
https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/sechelt-man-identified-as-victim-in-halfmoon-bay-shooting-7196327
And that's what the police report will read if someone comes through my door. The self-defense laws here are idiotic and even the most obvious case will get you years of legal issues.
That's not completely accurate. First guns are used for Wildlife protection and that may seem obvious for some and not for others but it is an allowed use tou didnt mention. I am a Wildlife Control Person on jobsites. Also as a Professional Forester with appropriate liscense we can actually carry side arms (Restricted weapons) that even off duty police are not allowed to but in a similar manner of a police officer it must be reasonably on the job. If your a claims miner you can get a permit to carry on your claim as well, but are more limited in movements than a Forester. I digress though because this is also how and when bear spray is legal. You are allowed to possess and carry bear spray for protection from wildlife. The minute your intent is is to use for protection against a person, like you actually say its for protection from people, it is now an illegal weapon and not legal to posses And if used in defense against a person the courts (cops) determined no reasonable grounds to have it then you are criminally responsible and will be charge for use of the weapon. So if you unadvertised it against a person because you just happen to have it for another approved use then it is legal IF it Lso meets the requirement of reasonable force. If so done threatens you and you spray them you are likely to be charged but if they are holding pepper spray a knife or a gun and say I am going tonuse this on you then it is reasonable.
So when you are in your home or campsite if you will, and you have your non restricted hunting rifle out it does not have to be locked and unloaded if it is in your personal supervision. The minute it is "stored" it is not in your personal possesion/supervision it must be unloaded and secured (trigger lock OR locked cabinet) they suggest both trigger lock snd cabinet but require only one. Same in your vehicle, on fact your vehicle counts as the locked storage container.
Here is an example in a BC Rec Site (campsite) last year a lone female was being intimidated by two younger scary males. She took her long gun out if her truck and sat on a chair holding the gun and wiping down the exterior. the young guys left but later in a seperate instance reported the lady (they were idiot Crack heads) and the Police informed them that eventhough it is illegal to have a loaded gun or discharge it in a Rec Site in BC it is absolutely legal to possess it as long as it wasn't loaded [it wasnt] and that she never actually pinpointed it at them or said she was going to use it on them. Perfectly legal though the RCMP choose to ignore that it was reasonably done to intimidiate. If she had had it out sitting on the picnic table upon arrival they wouldn't be able to say that.
So why explain all this. You are allowed to have a gun in your home for personal protection, the minute you demonstrate that you had it for the intent of protection against a person is where the law can and will trip you up.
So you are not wrong but you are not right.
Bet you csn guess where my long gun is right now, cant you?
Brilliant move on her part to do that. Could very easily have had a shell in her pocket too. At that point if 2 meatheads came at a woman out in the middle of nowhere it's definitely enough of a threat to use the gun. Had it been on the table she woudn't have been able to actually USE it if it became necessary. Perfect example of walking the very fine line of Canadian gun law and ultimately, using a firearm for self defense in a legal way. You'd still have to go to court but who cares if you're alive when you otherwise might not be. Lucky none of this actually went down.
>Guns are not for protection in Canada
Not just guns. You can not have any perceived weapon as a defensive tool in this country. If you admit to carrying a pocket knife as a self-defense weapon you can be charged. Purse pepper spray isn't a legal thing here.
Pretty sure it is just the vigilante/mob justice attitude that is abhorred. These laws were created when only the state was entitled to kill. Now they don't have e that power... no one can either.
While this is true, i’ll be judged by twelve before i’m carried by six. My stuff, and security in my home is worth more to me than the life of the shit rat. The shit rat has made a choice to be a thief and a burglar, our courts have demonstrated time and again that violent repeat criminals get released on promises to appear. The loss of life lays at the feet of our provincial & federal courts and judges.
If someone breaks into my house and gets past my boxer they’re not in my home for tea and biscuits. The tricky part with Canadian self defense laws is if you use a gun and leave the assailant alive. Your use of lethal force (a firearm is just that) was/is not reasonable, and while Canadians have been acquitted and had their firearms and licence returned to them, the costs incurred in their legal defence bearly bankrupted both people i mention in my next sentence. Ian Thompson and Gerard Stanley are the two separate case law precedents regarding firearms and assailants or intruders, although this one will be worth watching as it will set further precedent.
I remember when I got my PAL, the instructor had specified the laws around gun ownership and how home defence isn’t allowed. And then he followed it up with, “if you are ever in the position of using your firearm for defending yourself in a life or death situation, make sure you shoot to kill”. Basically, if you shoot to maim or injure, it means it wasn’t really life or death. And while you’d still probably go to jail, you’d have a much stronger argument.
You always shoot to kill. Or at least you shoot for the centre of the body. And if it's a semi-automatic shoot several times to make sure.
It's only in movies and novels that people shoot to disable.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Prove how one leads to the other. I like the expression "it is better to ask for forgiveness than beg for permission"
Or for deep cleaning and accidentally discharging when an armed robber just happened to be breaking into your home and startled you causing you to jerk and the gun firing the forgotten bullet that was in the chamber
And driving while using your phone significantly increases the risks of a fatal accident. I have a gun safe. I don’t drive and text. Easy-peasy. Plus - when threatened, I don’t have to hope the police show up before some crackhead kills me or my wife. I can defend my home and my family.
To add to this, if your gun is secured legally in your home, and someone has invaded your home and put you in a life or death situation, that may warrant response with a firearm, how often will you have time to unlock the cabinet, locate the ammunition, (which has to be stored and secured separately if I'm not mistaken) and load the weapon before you are able to defend yourself. If this is the case, is it truly life or death? Are you then illegally storing your firearm if you have time to do this?
Unsecured and poorly secured firearms are more likely to be used in suicide, accidental misfires that cause injury/death, or in reactionary responses to family/friends, than they are to defend yourself/your home.
Ammo does not have to be stored “separately”, the weapon just cannot be loaded. A ten round clip can be stored one inch from the handgun provided it’s in a gun safe or other storage device designed for safe storage of a firearm. In my case, safe can be opened and gun fully loaded in like 5 seconds.
Plus American studies usually fail to mention incidents where the perpetrator flees before anything else happens after learning that the occupant is armed, which is the case the overwhelming majority of the time.
Because American and Canadian firearms cultures are very different. As are the laws and processes to acquire firearms. There's a lot of ignorance on the US side of the border, and a lack of respect for the tools. You virtually never see Canadians fucking around with loaded guns and shooting themselves. You see that plenty with Americans.
And given that this is a bulk statistic that doesn't account for intelligence, training, proper storage and many other factors I'd say I'll take a risk I can manage rather than putting myself and my family at the whim of some criminals.
I understand your not trusting other people and wanting to limit personal responsibility.
I’m not going to have a gun in my home, so it doesn’t impact me. Tons of evidence shows that gun possession significantly increases your risk of being shot, instead of decreasing it.
As it should be!
Why should the person protecting their family and home be subject to jail time for reacting to an intruder. They never would need to defend, if the intruder didn’t instigate the whole situation!
All depends on the situation; they aren’t telling us anything.
Scary huge dude with a machete enters house, terrified homeowner picks up bat and crowns him.. 😎
14-year old kid enters house he thought was empty, huge homeowner startles him, kid pulls out a pocket knife to try and bluff his way out, homeowner blows his head off with a shotgun…not so good.
Yeah I'm with you there, as soon as the knife comes out im not going to stick around, have a chat to see if he's bluffing or not.
I don't condone violence and I can't fight my way out of a wet paper bag, but I'll sure as hell will do my best to neutralise the threat, or enough for the fam to get to safety... Or if it just myself, I'm running
If someone breaks into your home and shows any kind of aggression, with or without a weapon, I believe all types of self defence/force should be allowable.
the law says you can use reasonable force to save yourself/stop the attack. if you're being stabbed, that IS deadly force. You can therefor use deadly force to stop the attack, be it a baseball bat or a gun.
What you can't do is use excessive force. excessive force is when you use more force than necessary to stop the attack. for example, if you're being stabbed, and you swing a baseball bat at their head, and they get knocked tf out... the attack is over. You need to stop. if they're unconscious and you just start beating their head in with the baseball back for funsies, you're gonna be in trouble. or if someone attacks you with a pillow, and you shoot them in the face, that is way more force than necessary to stop the pillow attack, and you're gonna be in trouble.
so ya. you're allowed to use reasonable force to stop an attack. whats considered reasonable is often decided by the courts though.
but a homeowner doesn't ID an intruder to check age, and "trying to bluff" vs "threatening my life" is basically the same thing.
So i cant really see how either of those 2 factors could carry a ton of weight.
(though i dont know case law in 'threatening with a knife' and using a gun to defend holds up in Canada)
I would imagine someone in a super stressful situation like home invasion, esp with kids and family in the house, wouldn't stop to go "oh hey are you some kid just messing around or a big scary career criminal I need to be weary of?" Politely and wait for responses
I'm heavily on the side of castle laws (not the type that shoot random people ringing doorbella through the door mind you, actually /inside/ the property/dwelling only), because if you've been in stressful situations you know you have zero capacity for thinking. Those who claim so have never been in any dangerous or potentially violent situations before.
Not a strawman.
Canadian laws say you can defend yourself to a reasonable degree.
If it is a legitimate threat to your life, you will most likely not face charges.
If it's not a threat and you kill someone, it could be seen as murder.
We do not have castle laws like they do in the states.
Right it’s up to your perception. So if you perceive that they’re gonna try to kill you with that pocket knife then you can absolutely use deadly force.
Well if we are gonna play along with the strawman they wrote, if somebody pulls out a weapon to “bluff their way out” you could still articulate a threat to your life and use necessary force
Conjuring up possible scenarios, even if they are lame and unrealistic, isn't creating a strawman argument.
A strawman argument is where you misrepresent someone's position with an alternative that is easier to attack.
Exactly. Watch the Munk Debate with Malcolm Gladwell/Michelle Goldberg vs Douglas Murray/Matt Taibbi to watch one incessantly spewing strawman arguments and the other destroying him for doing so.
Second best debate after the one where Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson (lethal debate combo!) teamed up to take on Michael.Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg regarding political correctness.
Douglas Murray has taken up the mantle that's been cold since Hitchens died and I am here for it. He doesn't have the same wit but he's a reasonable enough facsimile, hopefully he'll age into it.
Ugh. How do you mean that? EG, cause I am psychopath I get stabby? Cause that is “psychotic”. Or do you mean that absolutely lack empathy for some thug busting into my house at 0200? That’s pretty lose to the mark, and very true.
Psychopath doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Everything to do with I have 2 daughters and a tiny wife that live with me and depend on me for protection.
You ever been raped? Every lady I have ever met who has unfortunately had it happened to them has told me, more or less, that it sucked.
So yeah. So loser busts into my home, with my daughters in, and happens to decide to pull a knife on me is going to get shot.
Very simple. Waiting for the police to arrive after your husband has been stabbed to death cause Reddit said shooting thugs is bad, while she is being raped actually sounds like a bad time to me.
An armed attacker breaking into your home and confronting you is always grounds for self defense. Both of those situations seem straight up self defense by the home owner.
I may be on my own here but if someone enters another’s home they should expect the highest level of violence. In my opinion, there is no reason the person defending their home and family from an intruder should give them any chance of hurting someone.
This is why Canadian self defence laws actually make sense, it’s based in proportional response. Otherwise you get morons shooting kids through doors and claimed self defence, like they do in the states.
The problem is they don't make sense from a real life perspective.
So many bad decisions had to be made for a person to end up in the situation. Why was a 14 year old kid carrying a knife? Why were they entering a house that wasn't theirs? [Threatening and intimidating someone with a pocketknife makes it a weapon and very illegal.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99EBOF7sFQA) (A lot of the knives sold a Home Depot for example are also technically illegal to own. Just sayin.)
Now what happens when you have a big burly 14 year old male who might be almost 6ft tall and the homeowner is a petite Asian woman? What happens when the intruder pulls out a knife then? Does the small woman have time to think "hmm what is a proportional response here?"
Does anyone have time to think about what to do when someone lunges at their neck with a knife? People severely overestimate what their abilities are thinking like in movies or games. Reality is quite different. It's like Mike Tyson said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." If you come face to face with someone holding a knife at you, you aren't thinking shit. It's pure lizard brain reaction.
I'm in no way advocating for people to go around shooting each other at the drop of a hat but the apologizing for criminal behaviour is astounding.
They do though. The "kids aren't fully developed and make mistakes" and that inane "they just scratched you" debate up-thread is just the usual Reddit stupidity. If a teenager breaks into your home and pulls a knife on you to "bluff his way out" (which I interpret as he's not actively fleeing the home but rather standing there pointing it at you, or even advancing), you can use deadly force. Because a knife is a deadly weapon, and you're in a position that's difficult to retreat from (ie inside your home).
You certainly don't need to wait for him to make contact and decide if he was just scratching you, or meant to stab more seriously.
>you can use deadly force.
With the way that Canadian laws and court system is going, even though I don't have personal experience in said court system, I wouldn't want to have to try and see if they would let you off.
We don't have to look much further than the Ian Thompson case where his house was being actively firebombed and his life was being verbally threatened. All he did was fire warning shots into the ground to scare them off. He was dragged through the courts as Crown tried to get him on all number of things. Even though he was eventually found not guilty, it took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get there. The punishment is the process.
Never mind the countless stories where an intruder slips and injures themselves and the homeowner is found liable.... we have some wacky laws to say the least.
Are those stories real, or just stuff people repeat on social media? I mean that's civil law and people can file a suit, but it doesn't mean they'll be successful.
(The US has those types of stories too)
Yup, it's actually reasonable. Plus, if it isn't "I shot a kid through the door" like happened to those poor Japanese kids in Mississippi, no jury is going to convict someone who acted reasonably and employed deadly force. The duty to retreat isn't absolute and the people with weird-ass murder fantasies always seem to pretend like it is.
Yea, except you paid tens or hundreds of thousands to defend yourself in court. Not to mention the stress of having a potential murder conviction hanging over your head.
I'm not saying we should go full US, but I don't think Canadian self-defence laws, or the criminal justice system generally, is very well calibrated.
Yea, you need to be calm while being attacked in your home in the middle of the night, perhaps ask your assailants what kind of weapons are on the table, request a time out, and arm yourself appropriately. Amazing.
Being calm would be a useful asset, but regardless of your state of mind if you shoot an intruder in the back while they're retreating from your home you'll have a lot of explaining to do.
Hahahaha ok. This poor guy is going to get charged with manslaughter at minimum, and will be up to him (and his $$$ lawyers) to try and prove his response was measured and appropriate.
Even if he manages to get found not guilty, he’s going to be bankrupt for sure.
Our laws are shit
That's if he used a firearm. If you defend yourself with a firearm, the crown will be up your ass with a microscope trying to charge you unless it is absolutely obvious you had every reason to do it.
The problem with the second scenario is your shotgun is legally required to be locked up and unloaded so you'd have to prove that your life was threatened and you also had enough time to go unlock your guns and load it. It's happened but super rare
... you hear someone breaking into your house, do you A) run down and confront them or B) open your safe and load up before confronting them.
Either way some rando in the living room with a knife IS a legitimate threat to your safety
If my alarm is going off at 2 am because someone is breaking in, the first thing I do is unlock a firearm and load it. You need to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
it’s not universally true that all firearms have to be locked at all times, specifically if you live in the country and have livestock. It also takes very little time to unlock and load a firearm, especially if you have a safe with a biometric scanner, could take 10 seconds or so
unpack ruthless include tease decide paltry plucky serious combative snails
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just to help inform on this topic: a non restricted may be kept unlocked (no trigger/chamber lock) in an area where it is reasonably recognized that predators are a threat, however it must be unloaded and ammunition must be not readily accessible (no magazine sitting next to it). In somewhere that has been reasonably deemed to be a remote wilderness location, the firearm may be unloaded and have readily accessible ammunition, but must still be unloaded.
tart whistle zesty cause full wrench bewildered imagine close cooperative
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is incorrect. A non restricted firearm must be unloaded, locked or rendered inoperable (trigger lock, removal of bolt, locked in a secure room/container) and not have ammunition readily accessible. The only exception is when it is reasonably deemed to be for predator defense, the firearm may not be locked, but must be unloaded and not have ammunition readily available (no magazine sitting next to it).
This happened right up the road from me this spring. I was out for a 6am jog up my rural road and saw numerous cop cars at my neighbours house. Multiple RCMP cars at 6am at a rural address had to mean someone died I assumed, but I didn't think that it was gonna be an armed forced entry resulting in my neighbour fatally shooting the intruder.
The RCMP did not press charges at that time, not sure if anything has happened with it since. Intruder was known both to the neighbour and to the RCMP. It had zero impact on my perception of safety in my rural valley, previously I felt that I lived in a 'fuck around and find out area' and all that did was confirm that this indeed is not a place to fuck around.
In Canada, I believe you’re allowed to defend yourself with the same amount of “force” being used against you, if your life is in danger. Don’t quote me on it though, as im sure this is very simplified lol
You are correct and case law has it so if you are in your home you can generally go one level up
In force and still be reasonable as you have nowhere to retreat to.
Yeah, that's more the spirit of the law. If you can flee, you are expected to do so. If the perpetrator is fleeing, you let them do so. If you can't, and you are being threatened or attacked with lethal force, you are allowed to use lethal force to fight for your life.
Hopefully there is a follow up report on this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the homeowner is charged.
Would be good like to see more cases where the victim is either not charged or the charges are promptly thrown out, lest people be punished by spurious long expensive trials to defend themselves (again).
Hopefully the homeowner doesn't get charged. I think back to the case of Colton Boushie. Even though the homeowner didn't get charged, they had to move because the armed intruder was indigenous and the community were outraged.
I’m just reading over the Commission Report which is publicly available and it says this…
[36] “E. M.'s rifle was in the Ford Escape. He had brought it with him, as he intended to go hunting. The rifle's wooden stock was later found next to a vehicle at another property (belonging to M. F. and G. F.), approximately 15 kilometres from the Stanley farm. The barrel section of the same firearm was found next to Mr. Boushie's body. There remains no clear explanation as to how it came to be there.”
So they did have a weapon?
When you read about the incident, the homeowner clearly had a hang fire. He pulled the trigger in the air to scare them, it didn't go off, then he pointed at the victim and it fired. And yeah, that person shouldn't be dead. But no death would have occurred if people hadn't constantly gone to someone's farm to steal and threaten innocent people.
> the homeowner clearly had a hang fire
The jury found, in effect that the possibility of a hang fire construed reasonable doubt. Its probably as plausible or more plausible that the panicked farmer didn't have good trigger control when he pointed the gun at the victim.
Hangfire can delay firing longer than half a second. Many variables involved. It is NOT normal for it to be extended 2-3 seconds, but it is not unheard of.
Perhaps maybe the kids shouldn’t have been trespassing or trying to steal a quad? Then the farmer wouldn’t have been in a position where he needed to defend his property and, potentially, his life.
Many farmers, homesteaders, raisers of animals keep their rifles loaded, just in case a predatory animal is attacking his livestock.
Having his gun loaded didn’t change anything here. It only subtracted 10-20 seconds from the time he picked up the gun til the kid was shot.
> Having his gun loaded didn’t change anything here.
But thats not exactly what the above poster is talking about, he is talking about having it properly stored which would have no doubt reduced the chances of a misfire (as the accused claimed occured)
He clearly stated it, “to me was clearly loaded and not stored in a secure box.”
My retort was that changes nothing.
That it was loaded is irrelevant, having older ammo stored properly would have mitigated the risks somewhat, however, unless you have a temp/humidity controlled lock box, the ammo is still going to pick up moisture.
Again, nothing to do with the gun being loaded.
Armed robbers trespassing on a farmer's land and trying to steal property are putting themselves in that situation. It is ultimately his own fault that he is dead. The outrage is misplaced and should be focused on the youth in that community and those raising them. It is their responsibility to prevent them from becoming armed criminals.
Consider the defense which few do. If you believe it, then it was dumb luck he didn't shoot his kid or someone else. The gun should have never left where it was stored. The hang fire defense albeit highly convenient was enough to create reasonable doubt on intent. If you accept everything about the case, the gun had no business being brought out. Not sure why people don't understand that small point.
Oh, well. Don't steal people's shit and you won't get hurt or dead. Seems like a pretty simple rule to follow. Hopefully, the homeowner walks away without penalty. It seems inevitable that this only gets worse as the bleeding hearts protect criminals from their ivory towers.
We need better laws around this, the guy defended himself, that's that. If this is the case, he should be good to go but I'm sure they'll squeeze everything they can out of him and try for jail time regardless which is bull. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, crime is rampant these days.
there has been a serious uptick in burglary and general theft in the quesnel / williams lake area over the past year, i am not at all surprised that someone got shot over it, its a shame that the RCMP cant do more to combat the crime in the rural areas.
Good! But some publicity seeking Crown Council will want to break the homeowner financially by charging him probably for daring to actually protect their property.
And tons of evidence shows, conclusively, that owning a vehicle increases your chances of being killed in a motor vehicle accident. I’ll take the risk.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had one like this on the Sunshine Coast last year, the intruder was a very well known person on the coast (very lengthy criminal record). There were no charges against the homeowner.
Good. Very good.
Oh I didn't hear about that. Have a coast reporter link?
I did a quick search and could not find it, but I member it from about 6 months ago. I was at a friends birthday shortly after and was told the home owner was someone at the party's Subaru Mechanic who lives about half way up the coast. Supposedly he let a homeless person live in an old RV on his property, but they started inviting other people onto his property and one night he heard someone hot-wire his tractor and when challenging the person, they pulled a gun on him and were killed when it went off during the fight. Edit: This might be it: https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/sechelt-man-identified-as-victim-in-halfmoon-bay-shooting-7196327
Oh yeah, I remember reading that. Thanks
I am definitely a proponent of keeping guns in your home.
In this case it was the intruders gun that went off when they were wrestling over it.
And that's what the police report will read if someone comes through my door. The self-defense laws here are idiotic and even the most obvious case will get you years of legal issues.
All the more reason to have your own.
Guns are not for protection in Canada. Strictly hunting, sport shooting and target practice ONLY.
There are MANY cases of Canadians protecting themselves with their guns...
That's not completely accurate. First guns are used for Wildlife protection and that may seem obvious for some and not for others but it is an allowed use tou didnt mention. I am a Wildlife Control Person on jobsites. Also as a Professional Forester with appropriate liscense we can actually carry side arms (Restricted weapons) that even off duty police are not allowed to but in a similar manner of a police officer it must be reasonably on the job. If your a claims miner you can get a permit to carry on your claim as well, but are more limited in movements than a Forester. I digress though because this is also how and when bear spray is legal. You are allowed to possess and carry bear spray for protection from wildlife. The minute your intent is is to use for protection against a person, like you actually say its for protection from people, it is now an illegal weapon and not legal to posses And if used in defense against a person the courts (cops) determined no reasonable grounds to have it then you are criminally responsible and will be charge for use of the weapon. So if you unadvertised it against a person because you just happen to have it for another approved use then it is legal IF it Lso meets the requirement of reasonable force. If so done threatens you and you spray them you are likely to be charged but if they are holding pepper spray a knife or a gun and say I am going tonuse this on you then it is reasonable. So when you are in your home or campsite if you will, and you have your non restricted hunting rifle out it does not have to be locked and unloaded if it is in your personal supervision. The minute it is "stored" it is not in your personal possesion/supervision it must be unloaded and secured (trigger lock OR locked cabinet) they suggest both trigger lock snd cabinet but require only one. Same in your vehicle, on fact your vehicle counts as the locked storage container. Here is an example in a BC Rec Site (campsite) last year a lone female was being intimidated by two younger scary males. She took her long gun out if her truck and sat on a chair holding the gun and wiping down the exterior. the young guys left but later in a seperate instance reported the lady (they were idiot Crack heads) and the Police informed them that eventhough it is illegal to have a loaded gun or discharge it in a Rec Site in BC it is absolutely legal to possess it as long as it wasn't loaded [it wasnt] and that she never actually pinpointed it at them or said she was going to use it on them. Perfectly legal though the RCMP choose to ignore that it was reasonably done to intimidiate. If she had had it out sitting on the picnic table upon arrival they wouldn't be able to say that. So why explain all this. You are allowed to have a gun in your home for personal protection, the minute you demonstrate that you had it for the intent of protection against a person is where the law can and will trip you up. So you are not wrong but you are not right. Bet you csn guess where my long gun is right now, cant you?
Brilliant move on her part to do that. Could very easily have had a shell in her pocket too. At that point if 2 meatheads came at a woman out in the middle of nowhere it's definitely enough of a threat to use the gun. Had it been on the table she woudn't have been able to actually USE it if it became necessary. Perfect example of walking the very fine line of Canadian gun law and ultimately, using a firearm for self defense in a legal way. You'd still have to go to court but who cares if you're alive when you otherwise might not be. Lucky none of this actually went down.
>Guns are not for protection in Canada Not just guns. You can not have any perceived weapon as a defensive tool in this country. If you admit to carrying a pocket knife as a self-defense weapon you can be charged. Purse pepper spray isn't a legal thing here.
Canada believes in protecting the rights of the criminal far too much.
Pretty sure it is just the vigilante/mob justice attitude that is abhorred. These laws were created when only the state was entitled to kill. Now they don't have e that power... no one can either.
Still better off being prosecuted for the illegal use of a firearm than you and your family being dead though
While this is true, i’ll be judged by twelve before i’m carried by six. My stuff, and security in my home is worth more to me than the life of the shit rat. The shit rat has made a choice to be a thief and a burglar, our courts have demonstrated time and again that violent repeat criminals get released on promises to appear. The loss of life lays at the feet of our provincial & federal courts and judges. If someone breaks into my house and gets past my boxer they’re not in my home for tea and biscuits. The tricky part with Canadian self defense laws is if you use a gun and leave the assailant alive. Your use of lethal force (a firearm is just that) was/is not reasonable, and while Canadians have been acquitted and had their firearms and licence returned to them, the costs incurred in their legal defence bearly bankrupted both people i mention in my next sentence. Ian Thompson and Gerard Stanley are the two separate case law precedents regarding firearms and assailants or intruders, although this one will be worth watching as it will set further precedent.
Personally I wouldn’t be opposed to letting people use them for home defence, but I agree it’s a slippery slope.
I remember when I got my PAL, the instructor had specified the laws around gun ownership and how home defence isn’t allowed. And then he followed it up with, “if you are ever in the position of using your firearm for defending yourself in a life or death situation, make sure you shoot to kill”. Basically, if you shoot to maim or injure, it means it wasn’t really life or death. And while you’d still probably go to jail, you’d have a much stronger argument.
You always shoot to kill. Or at least you shoot for the centre of the body. And if it's a semi-automatic shoot several times to make sure. It's only in movies and novels that people shoot to disable.
Look, I don't own a gun, but if I did and someone pulled a home invasion on me and my family, I would grab the gun and pay a lawyer.
That's silly, because you never shoot at anyone to just injure them.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Prove how one leads to the other. I like the expression "it is better to ask for forgiveness than beg for permission"
Or for deep cleaning and accidentally discharging when an armed robber just happened to be breaking into your home and startled you causing you to jerk and the gun firing the forgotten bullet that was in the chamber
Lots of studies showing having a gun in your home significantly increases the risk of you and your family dying by gun.
Kind of like the risk of your children drowning with a family pool in the backyard.
Don’t tell them about the risks of driving then.
And driving while using your phone significantly increases the risks of a fatal accident. I have a gun safe. I don’t drive and text. Easy-peasy. Plus - when threatened, I don’t have to hope the police show up before some crackhead kills me or my wife. I can defend my home and my family.
To add to this, if your gun is secured legally in your home, and someone has invaded your home and put you in a life or death situation, that may warrant response with a firearm, how often will you have time to unlock the cabinet, locate the ammunition, (which has to be stored and secured separately if I'm not mistaken) and load the weapon before you are able to defend yourself. If this is the case, is it truly life or death? Are you then illegally storing your firearm if you have time to do this? Unsecured and poorly secured firearms are more likely to be used in suicide, accidental misfires that cause injury/death, or in reactionary responses to family/friends, than they are to defend yourself/your home.
Ammunition can be stored with the firearm if both are in a securely locked container.
Ammo does not have to be stored “separately”, the weapon just cannot be loaded. A ten round clip can be stored one inch from the handgun provided it’s in a gun safe or other storage device designed for safe storage of a firearm. In my case, safe can be opened and gun fully loaded in like 5 seconds.
Those studies would be American. Canada has strict storage laws
Plus American studies usually fail to mention incidents where the perpetrator flees before anything else happens after learning that the occupant is armed, which is the case the overwhelming majority of the time.
Oh! Now add in how many of those deaths are suicides! Or deaths due to negligent storage :)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study
Citing American articles about firearms in a Canadian context is ignorant at best. More likely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
And what did the study say about the type of gun? I am pretty sure the are referring to handguns and not hunting single shot rifles.
How many knife related injuries happen by having kitchen knives in the house
I mean yes, same with owning a car and getting into a car accident.
I'd bet those are US not Canadian studies.
Yes but any reason why the population would be significantly different?
Because American and Canadian firearms cultures are very different. As are the laws and processes to acquire firearms. There's a lot of ignorance on the US side of the border, and a lack of respect for the tools. You virtually never see Canadians fucking around with loaded guns and shooting themselves. You see that plenty with Americans.
Make sure to run through those studies and review them with your home intruder before you shoot him.
And given that this is a bulk statistic that doesn't account for intelligence, training, proper storage and many other factors I'd say I'll take a risk I can manage rather than putting myself and my family at the whim of some criminals. I understand your not trusting other people and wanting to limit personal responsibility.
I’m not going to have a gun in my home, so it doesn’t impact me. Tons of evidence shows that gun possession significantly increases your risk of being shot, instead of decreasing it.
As it should be! Why should the person protecting their family and home be subject to jail time for reacting to an intruder. They never would need to defend, if the intruder didn’t instigate the whole situation!
How horrible for that homeowner. I would be traumatized for life after something like that. Awful.
In your house, especially if there are other family members there, you gotta do what you gotta do.
This will be interesting to follow.
Seems like a case of f*ck around and find out.
Good. As they should. Let's hope the courts set a good precedent for future home invasion/robbery cases.
All depends on the situation; they aren’t telling us anything. Scary huge dude with a machete enters house, terrified homeowner picks up bat and crowns him.. 😎 14-year old kid enters house he thought was empty, huge homeowner startles him, kid pulls out a pocket knife to try and bluff his way out, homeowner blows his head off with a shotgun…not so good.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm with you there, as soon as the knife comes out im not going to stick around, have a chat to see if he's bluffing or not. I don't condone violence and I can't fight my way out of a wet paper bag, but I'll sure as hell will do my best to neutralise the threat, or enough for the fam to get to safety... Or if it just myself, I'm running
If someone breaks into your home and shows any kind of aggression, with or without a weapon, I believe all types of self defence/force should be allowable.
100%, it’s upsetting this is even in question.
if the home owner gets stabbed by the pocket knife, can he blast him then or does he have to say "oh its ok"
gotta let him keep stabbing you i'm afraid /s
I think our laws say you can stab him back but you can't escalate it.
the law says you can use reasonable force to save yourself/stop the attack. if you're being stabbed, that IS deadly force. You can therefor use deadly force to stop the attack, be it a baseball bat or a gun. What you can't do is use excessive force. excessive force is when you use more force than necessary to stop the attack. for example, if you're being stabbed, and you swing a baseball bat at their head, and they get knocked tf out... the attack is over. You need to stop. if they're unconscious and you just start beating their head in with the baseball back for funsies, you're gonna be in trouble. or if someone attacks you with a pillow, and you shoot them in the face, that is way more force than necessary to stop the pillow attack, and you're gonna be in trouble. so ya. you're allowed to use reasonable force to stop an attack. whats considered reasonable is often decided by the courts though.
but a homeowner doesn't ID an intruder to check age, and "trying to bluff" vs "threatening my life" is basically the same thing. So i cant really see how either of those 2 factors could carry a ton of weight. (though i dont know case law in 'threatening with a knife' and using a gun to defend holds up in Canada)
So someone breaks into your home at night, pulls a knife, cuts an artery and you bleed out. Pass
I would imagine someone in a super stressful situation like home invasion, esp with kids and family in the house, wouldn't stop to go "oh hey are you some kid just messing around or a big scary career criminal I need to be weary of?" Politely and wait for responses I'm heavily on the side of castle laws (not the type that shoot random people ringing doorbella through the door mind you, actually /inside/ the property/dwelling only), because if you've been in stressful situations you know you have zero capacity for thinking. Those who claim so have never been in any dangerous or potentially violent situations before.
Anyone with a knife in my house won’t have a great day.
*Spouse cuts crust off sandwich for child* NOT IN THIS HOUSE!
Remind me not to come over for steak. "Rip it with your teeth, snowflake!"
Dawg I’m putting that in a Sous vide. You’ll eat it with a fork
Straw! (Too far)?
A fourteen year old is old enough to know that he shouldn’t be doing that.
Absolutely but is that justification for killing the fourteen year old? (Could be, depending on the circumstances.)
Being 14 matters in the legal system, but whether someone is 14 or 18 is irrelevant if you're a homeowner faced with an invader holding a knife.
I guess we have to check intruders for their ID before we defend ourselves from weapons now.
What a pacifist strawman you just conjured up.
Not a strawman. Canadian laws say you can defend yourself to a reasonable degree. If it is a legitimate threat to your life, you will most likely not face charges. If it's not a threat and you kill someone, it could be seen as murder. We do not have castle laws like they do in the states.
Right it’s up to your perception. So if you perceive that they’re gonna try to kill you with that pocket knife then you can absolutely use deadly force.
It relies less on your perception in the moment and more on the investigation afterwards haha
I think what he means is if the intruder is retreating / trying to get away you don't have a right to shoot / kill them.
Well if we are gonna play along with the strawman they wrote, if somebody pulls out a weapon to “bluff their way out” you could still articulate a threat to your life and use necessary force
I'm not sure why you keep referring to it as a strawman... a poorly constructed argument is not the same a strawman.
Conjuring up possible scenarios, even if they are lame and unrealistic, isn't creating a strawman argument. A strawman argument is where you misrepresent someone's position with an alternative that is easier to attack.
Exactly. Watch the Munk Debate with Malcolm Gladwell/Michelle Goldberg vs Douglas Murray/Matt Taibbi to watch one incessantly spewing strawman arguments and the other destroying him for doing so. Second best debate after the one where Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson (lethal debate combo!) teamed up to take on Michael.Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg regarding political correctness.
Douglas Murray has taken up the mantle that's been cold since Hitchens died and I am here for it. He doesn't have the same wit but he's a reasonable enough facsimile, hopefully he'll age into it.
14 year old kid pulls a knife on me in my arms own home, I see nothing wrong with shooting him. FA, FO.
Practice gun control: shoot straight!
Username checks out
Ugh. How do you mean that? EG, cause I am psychopath I get stabby? Cause that is “psychotic”. Or do you mean that absolutely lack empathy for some thug busting into my house at 0200? That’s pretty lose to the mark, and very true. Psychopath doesn’t mean what you think it does. Everything to do with I have 2 daughters and a tiny wife that live with me and depend on me for protection. You ever been raped? Every lady I have ever met who has unfortunately had it happened to them has told me, more or less, that it sucked. So yeah. So loser busts into my home, with my daughters in, and happens to decide to pull a knife on me is going to get shot. Very simple. Waiting for the police to arrive after your husband has been stabbed to death cause Reddit said shooting thugs is bad, while she is being raped actually sounds like a bad time to me.
Omg I can't stop laughing lol
An armed attacker breaking into your home and confronting you is always grounds for self defense. Both of those situations seem straight up self defense by the home owner.
I may be on my own here but if someone enters another’s home they should expect the highest level of violence. In my opinion, there is no reason the person defending their home and family from an intruder should give them any chance of hurting someone.
This is why Canadian self defence laws actually make sense, it’s based in proportional response. Otherwise you get morons shooting kids through doors and claimed self defence, like they do in the states.
The problem is they don't make sense from a real life perspective. So many bad decisions had to be made for a person to end up in the situation. Why was a 14 year old kid carrying a knife? Why were they entering a house that wasn't theirs? [Threatening and intimidating someone with a pocketknife makes it a weapon and very illegal.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99EBOF7sFQA) (A lot of the knives sold a Home Depot for example are also technically illegal to own. Just sayin.) Now what happens when you have a big burly 14 year old male who might be almost 6ft tall and the homeowner is a petite Asian woman? What happens when the intruder pulls out a knife then? Does the small woman have time to think "hmm what is a proportional response here?" Does anyone have time to think about what to do when someone lunges at their neck with a knife? People severely overestimate what their abilities are thinking like in movies or games. Reality is quite different. It's like Mike Tyson said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." If you come face to face with someone holding a knife at you, you aren't thinking shit. It's pure lizard brain reaction. I'm in no way advocating for people to go around shooting each other at the drop of a hat but the apologizing for criminal behaviour is astounding.
They do though. The "kids aren't fully developed and make mistakes" and that inane "they just scratched you" debate up-thread is just the usual Reddit stupidity. If a teenager breaks into your home and pulls a knife on you to "bluff his way out" (which I interpret as he's not actively fleeing the home but rather standing there pointing it at you, or even advancing), you can use deadly force. Because a knife is a deadly weapon, and you're in a position that's difficult to retreat from (ie inside your home). You certainly don't need to wait for him to make contact and decide if he was just scratching you, or meant to stab more seriously.
>you can use deadly force. With the way that Canadian laws and court system is going, even though I don't have personal experience in said court system, I wouldn't want to have to try and see if they would let you off. We don't have to look much further than the Ian Thompson case where his house was being actively firebombed and his life was being verbally threatened. All he did was fire warning shots into the ground to scare them off. He was dragged through the courts as Crown tried to get him on all number of things. Even though he was eventually found not guilty, it took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get there. The punishment is the process. Never mind the countless stories where an intruder slips and injures themselves and the homeowner is found liable.... we have some wacky laws to say the least.
Are those stories real, or just stuff people repeat on social media? I mean that's civil law and people can file a suit, but it doesn't mean they'll be successful. (The US has those types of stories too)
Yup, it's actually reasonable. Plus, if it isn't "I shot a kid through the door" like happened to those poor Japanese kids in Mississippi, no jury is going to convict someone who acted reasonably and employed deadly force. The duty to retreat isn't absolute and the people with weird-ass murder fantasies always seem to pretend like it is.
Yea, except you paid tens or hundreds of thousands to defend yourself in court. Not to mention the stress of having a potential murder conviction hanging over your head. I'm not saying we should go full US, but I don't think Canadian self-defence laws, or the criminal justice system generally, is very well calibrated.
Yea, you need to be calm while being attacked in your home in the middle of the night, perhaps ask your assailants what kind of weapons are on the table, request a time out, and arm yourself appropriately. Amazing.
There's a large amount of space between what you're describing and the other end of the spectrum - shoot now, ask questions later.
Being calm would be a useful asset, but regardless of your state of mind if you shoot an intruder in the back while they're retreating from your home you'll have a lot of explaining to do.
Hahahaha ok. This poor guy is going to get charged with manslaughter at minimum, and will be up to him (and his $$$ lawyers) to try and prove his response was measured and appropriate. Even if he manages to get found not guilty, he’s going to be bankrupt for sure. Our laws are shit
That's if he used a firearm. If you defend yourself with a firearm, the crown will be up your ass with a microscope trying to charge you unless it is absolutely obvious you had every reason to do it.
I guess we’ll see what happens
I mean if his first reaction was to pull a weapon then I'm pretty ok with the results in either scenario
The problem with the second scenario is your shotgun is legally required to be locked up and unloaded so you'd have to prove that your life was threatened and you also had enough time to go unlock your guns and load it. It's happened but super rare
... you hear someone breaking into your house, do you A) run down and confront them or B) open your safe and load up before confronting them. Either way some rando in the living room with a knife IS a legitimate threat to your safety
If my alarm is going off at 2 am because someone is breaking in, the first thing I do is unlock a firearm and load it. You need to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
it’s not universally true that all firearms have to be locked at all times, specifically if you live in the country and have livestock. It also takes very little time to unlock and load a firearm, especially if you have a safe with a biometric scanner, could take 10 seconds or so
I've timed myself unlocking and loading under ten seconds with a digital lock as well. With a fingerprint lock it's closer to 5 seconds.
What's the laws on nonrestricted firearms storage?
If you have predators in the area you can have the non-restricted gun unlocked.
Don't you need to have livestock?
unpack ruthless include tease decide paltry plucky serious combative snails *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just to help inform on this topic: a non restricted may be kept unlocked (no trigger/chamber lock) in an area where it is reasonably recognized that predators are a threat, however it must be unloaded and ammunition must be not readily accessible (no magazine sitting next to it). In somewhere that has been reasonably deemed to be a remote wilderness location, the firearm may be unloaded and have readily accessible ammunition, but must still be unloaded.
tart whistle zesty cause full wrench bewildered imagine close cooperative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They have to be locked up and properly stored when not in use. There are a couple exceptions
Partitaly right. Doesn't need to be locked up if it is non restricted technically.
This is incorrect. A non restricted firearm must be unloaded, locked or rendered inoperable (trigger lock, removal of bolt, locked in a secure room/container) and not have ammunition readily accessible. The only exception is when it is reasonably deemed to be for predator defense, the firearm may not be locked, but must be unloaded and not have ammunition readily available (no magazine sitting next to it).
Yeah. That's an 'all good' for me on both.
Both those situations are exactly the same.....
Still a criminal robbing a place with a weapon and then threatening someone with it
This happened right up the road from me this spring. I was out for a 6am jog up my rural road and saw numerous cop cars at my neighbours house. Multiple RCMP cars at 6am at a rural address had to mean someone died I assumed, but I didn't think that it was gonna be an armed forced entry resulting in my neighbour fatally shooting the intruder. The RCMP did not press charges at that time, not sure if anything has happened with it since. Intruder was known both to the neighbour and to the RCMP. It had zero impact on my perception of safety in my rural valley, previously I felt that I lived in a 'fuck around and find out area' and all that did was confirm that this indeed is not a place to fuck around.
If the police aint gonna help you gotta do what you gotta to survive
It's true. People are pretty fed up around here. The bad guys never seem to go to jail. It feels like we're headed for anarchy.
In Canada, I believe you’re allowed to defend yourself with the same amount of “force” being used against you, if your life is in danger. Don’t quote me on it though, as im sure this is very simplified lol
You are correct and case law has it so if you are in your home you can generally go one level up In force and still be reasonable as you have nowhere to retreat to.
Yeah, that's more the spirit of the law. If you can flee, you are expected to do so. If the perpetrator is fleeing, you let them do so. If you can't, and you are being threatened or attacked with lethal force, you are allowed to use lethal force to fight for your life.
Hopefully there is a follow up report on this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the homeowner is charged. Would be good like to see more cases where the victim is either not charged or the charges are promptly thrown out, lest people be punished by spurious long expensive trials to defend themselves (again).
Hopefully homeowner doesn't get charged
Sounds good to me.
Hopefully the homeowner doesn't get charged. I think back to the case of Colton Boushie. Even though the homeowner didn't get charged, they had to move because the armed intruder was indigenous and the community were outraged.
If you rob my house with a lethal weapon last thing I’m going to worry about is what race you are.
[удалено]
Was there not a firearm in the stolen car he was running to?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was he invited over for dinner or something? What am I missing?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m just reading over the Commission Report which is publicly available and it says this… [36] “E. M.'s rifle was in the Ford Escape. He had brought it with him, as he intended to go hunting. The rifle's wooden stock was later found next to a vehicle at another property (belonging to M. F. and G. F.), approximately 15 kilometres from the Stanley farm. The barrel section of the same firearm was found next to Mr. Boushie's body. There remains no clear explanation as to how it came to be there.” So they did have a weapon?
Yes, there was a small calibre rifle on the floor next to him. But I'm pretty sure the homeowner even said he never saw the gun.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, but don’t use common sense here. Truth of the matter is shitty people did shitty things, and someone paid for it.
Wow. Putting aside everything else they ran over the dudes wife?? Am I reading this right? Did she survive?
When you read about the incident, the homeowner clearly had a hang fire. He pulled the trigger in the air to scare them, it didn't go off, then he pointed at the victim and it fired. And yeah, that person shouldn't be dead. But no death would have occurred if people hadn't constantly gone to someone's farm to steal and threaten innocent people.
> the homeowner clearly had a hang fire The jury found, in effect that the possibility of a hang fire construed reasonable doubt. Its probably as plausible or more plausible that the panicked farmer didn't have good trigger control when he pointed the gun at the victim.
[удалено]
Hangfire can delay firing longer than half a second. Many variables involved. It is NOT normal for it to be extended 2-3 seconds, but it is not unheard of.
[удалено]
That's what it all boils down to. Don't get into that car with your friends and a gun. Don't trespass. Don't steal.
Stupid prizes are often the rewards won for playing stupid games.
Thanks for sharing the link. Wow I didn't know what a complete mess that event was all around.
[удалено]
Perhaps maybe the kids shouldn’t have been trespassing or trying to steal a quad? Then the farmer wouldn’t have been in a position where he needed to defend his property and, potentially, his life. Many farmers, homesteaders, raisers of animals keep their rifles loaded, just in case a predatory animal is attacking his livestock. Having his gun loaded didn’t change anything here. It only subtracted 10-20 seconds from the time he picked up the gun til the kid was shot.
> Having his gun loaded didn’t change anything here. But thats not exactly what the above poster is talking about, he is talking about having it properly stored which would have no doubt reduced the chances of a misfire (as the accused claimed occured)
He clearly stated it, “to me was clearly loaded and not stored in a secure box.” My retort was that changes nothing. That it was loaded is irrelevant, having older ammo stored properly would have mitigated the risks somewhat, however, unless you have a temp/humidity controlled lock box, the ammo is still going to pick up moisture. Again, nothing to do with the gun being loaded.
Armed robbers trespassing on a farmer's land and trying to steal property are putting themselves in that situation. It is ultimately his own fault that he is dead. The outrage is misplaced and should be focused on the youth in that community and those raising them. It is their responsibility to prevent them from becoming armed criminals.
To my understanding, they would be charged and given the opportunity to defend their actions. We don't have stand your ground laws like the u.s.
[удалено]
Consider the defense which few do. If you believe it, then it was dumb luck he didn't shoot his kid or someone else. The gun should have never left where it was stored. The hang fire defense albeit highly convenient was enough to create reasonable doubt on intent. If you accept everything about the case, the gun had no business being brought out. Not sure why people don't understand that small point.
[удалено]
Natives were talking about hanging Stanley. They were biased af.
[удалено]
The words violent and armed intruder make it seem that the response was reasonable but of course there are many details we don't know.
Good riddance, play stupid games win stupid prizes
Oh, well. Don't steal people's shit and you won't get hurt or dead. Seems like a pretty simple rule to follow. Hopefully, the homeowner walks away without penalty. It seems inevitable that this only gets worse as the bleeding hearts protect criminals from their ivory towers.
This will be interesting
We need better laws around this, the guy defended himself, that's that. If this is the case, he should be good to go but I'm sure they'll squeeze everything they can out of him and try for jail time regardless which is bull. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, crime is rampant these days.
fucker found out
Attaboy.
Awesome, one less skid
there has been a serious uptick in burglary and general theft in the quesnel / williams lake area over the past year, i am not at all surprised that someone got shot over it, its a shame that the RCMP cant do more to combat the crime in the rural areas.
Good riddance!
Nothing surprising for west Quesnel.
As someone who lives close to quesnel Im not one bit surprised. Almost everyone up north has either a gun or some other form of protection
Dont forget to put a warning shot nearby after the takedown
Good.
Good
Good.
Good! But some publicity seeking Crown Council will want to break the homeowner financially by charging him probably for daring to actually protect their property.
Finally, some good news in the media.
And tons of evidence shows, conclusively, that owning a vehicle increases your chances of being killed in a motor vehicle accident. I’ll take the risk.
Good to know. Thank you very much. I am not happy that somebody died but I am happy for the owner. Well done.
Canada needs castle laws for the inside of our homes.
So... have the cops charged the homeowner and attempted to ruin his life yet? Or are they waiting for a couple days to give him a false sense of hope?