actually, you do have control over a dog if you train it properly......all my dogs, It didnt matter whether they were feeding, fighting or ****ing, when I yelled ENOUGH, they stopped and sat.
Farmer Shoots at Thief
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
actually, you do have control over a dog if you train it properly......all my dogs, It didnt matter whether they were feeding, fighting or ****ing, when I yelled ENOUGH, they stopped and sat.
thats their "copout" same as when people say I was under the influence of weed when I beat the crap out that guy......weed doesnt make people violent.
in Australia we don t have rabies....but it gets put down anyway.
yet they can sue.
put bars on my windows??!!! why the hell should I have to go to the expense of putting bars on my windows to keep arseholes out??? a sign that says "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT, THERE WILL BE NO SURVIVORS TO PROSECUTE" should suffice!!!
if the law,as it calls itself, had the balls to uphold the law, that would be nice.....start by making prison not a nice place to be, take away ALL rights!!!!
There was a case in Surrey a few years ago where a couple of dolts kept breaking into this man's truck and stealing his tools. Now this guy depended on his tools to make a living. After putting up with this for a weeks, the guy wired a few sticks of dynamite to the toolbox welded to the back of his truck. Apparently it was enough dynamite to kill one of the thieves. The victim of the thefts was put through hell for trying to protect his own posessions.
Personally, if I lived in the country now, after the things I've seen happen to some of my rural relatives (like my uncle who came home to a dog with no head a little while ago), I'd have some cameras hidden on my property to tape any license plates coming up my driveway, and any faces coming to my door.
What I was trying to get across is that in attempting to save your property, the thief could have a weapon and turn it on you. In the case of the farmer, since he jumped in his truck and followed them - I don't understand why he didn't just get the licence plate number and call it in. His wife should have been calling the police and telling them that he was chasing the thieves. I doubt at that point that it would have taken an hour for the police to get there. They would have hopped to it. It would have signaled a different kind of urgency because it would have said "Hey, someone could get hurt here". I still disagree with the way the whole thing happened. I still say that for anyone who wants to protect their property (belongings), you best decide if your goods or your life are more important. While I'm sure that ATV's are convenient for farmers, they are not and never have been a necessity. My brother owns an orchard and he too has an ATV. His grandkids and mine love riding on it. Obviously it has a purpose. Not one worth dying for.
What is, or is not " worth dying for" is about as personal a decision as I can imagine, and is completely up to the individual.....not the law, don't you think?
It wouldn't take that hour for either bullet to go from Point A to Point B. Did it say anywhere who called the cops? How does anyone know Mrs Knight (presumed) didn't? Cops take a long time to get anywhere. They're not supposed to arrive without back-up. My guess is if Mister Green-Jeans wanted to kill a fox ... he could.
Rural roots are a long way from Timmies....
I read several news stories over the last week on this story.
-I don't know who called the RCMP
-I don't know what happened once the Car Mr. Knight was
driving, and Mr. Knights ATV driven by the thief entered the
ditch, to instigate not one but two shots from the shotgun, but
only once was the thief hit (was one a warning shot? I don't
know).
-I don't know the RCMP's response time to this incident, but
only Neighbours of Mr. Knights describing their experiences to
other Break-Ins and such....and it isn't fast. I'm not knocking the
RCMP as who knows how much ground they have to cover
with how few bodies? Not I?
-I don't know if this is the first time that Mr. Knight has faced this
scenario of theft from his farm before? Or recently? Or recently by
these same thieves? None of the stories stated answers to these
assumptions....
OK here is what I read into this..
For one this story is fishy at best from the start.. Why would 3 people want an ATV from this framer who refuses to call the police and takes matters into his own hands ? My first impression is that he knew or thought he knew these guys, hence he owed people for something, and didn't want the police involved..
If I was alone and even had a gun I would not take off after 3 people not knowing if they had guns themselves unless I had something to hide and didn't want the law involved. Endangering others that could be in the area while doing so is a darn good reason for the police to go after him for added charges. If the thieves only took the vehicle, they can only be charged for the one crime. However the farmer could have outstanding issues that we are not aware of that led to this whole fiasco and his own demise..
For one this story is fishy at best from the start.. Why would 3 people want an ATV from this framer who refuses to call the police and takes matters into his own hands ? My first impression is that he knew or thought he knew these guys, hence he owed people for something, and didn't want the police involved..
If I was alone and even had a gun I would not take off after 3 people not knowing if they had guns themselves unless I had something to hide and didn't want the law involved. Endangering others that could be in the area while doing so is a darn good reason for the police to go after him for added charges. If the thieves only took the vehicle, they can only be charged for the one crime. However the farmer could have outstanding issues that we are not aware of that led to this whole fiasco and his own demise..
Ron: You then have to assume that if the response time is slow, they know it's going to take them long enough to get there, that there is no reason to hurry unless it's a life or death situation. Mr. Knight's actions of taking the law into his own hands has probably upped the response time now. I hope that turns out to be a good thing.
Well...I'll cross my fingers if you'll cross yours. ;-)
The unlikely thing though seems to be that the RCMP are
making an example here, not to the thief(s), but towards
Mr. Knight.
What you say sounds good, but the problem is once the case gets to the judge the perpetrator is right back on the street, whereas when the farmer deals with it the guy isn't going to be right back on the street. Not to mention the process is a lot cheaper for the taxpayer.
No that's not right JLM. The farmer has a bunch of charges against him now. Cheaper for the tax payer? In what way. The farmer will probably go to jail. Like it or not, agree with it or not, he still tried to kill someone because he is guilty of shooting at the man who stole his property. I'm not sure but I think if the guy had broken into his house and he felt his life was threatened, he could have gotten away with murder. In this case, he pursued the man and then after running him off the road, he shot him (or shot him running him off the road or whatever). No matter what, he went after the thief, and they may even see that forcing him off the road was a way of attempting to kill him along with the fact that he shot at the guy. Sadly, they are probably going to make a example out of the farmer so that no one else tries it in the future. In the eyes of the law - the farmer is guilty. The other guys will simply be charged with theft and it won't even be much of a charge. How will the farmer care for his farm now? It's all wrong no matter how you slice it.
So true, but unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Knight has given them much of a choice. He did not try to assist the police with information. He tried to do their job - with a real gun.