Unforgiven;1376756]His lawyer gave an interview on the Daily Split that is on youtube. I found the link within one of your links though damned if I can remember which now.
Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.
You know or should know that it's reasonable force. Always has been always will be. Threats are against the law but have to have a criteria met before they are credible. So no if someone threatens you, you can't blow them away with your 12 gauge riot gun no matter how much you want to.
Go look it up. You have to actually fear for your life, you have to be under imminent attack by a credible threat. Someone acting aggressive toward you with a gun in their hand, I would say you probably have cause. Someone standing around with a stick calling you names, not so much. Again you can go look this up. It's available on the Internet and stated quite clearly.
Absolutely! And having to exit my house which is having bottles of gasoline thrown at it, and go outside where the people throwing the gasoline are situated............that is imminent attack and a credible threat. Unless you happen to be fire proof.
Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.
When I say THREATEN, I mean show intent.....and YES if you have a pointy stick within 21 feet of me, and I have no escape route, and you say you intend to hurt me with it, I can disintegrate you with my ray gun, if I have one handy, or call in an airstrike, or whatever else is necessary to stop your attack. If you are in possesion of a weapon, and you voice a threat, you have already commited assault.
Sorry, Unforgiven, but I don't need to look it up...... I teach this stuff (now to unarmed guards) and you do not understand the law. Simple as that.
As well, I can use force on anyone to remove them from trespassing on my property..........the force must be proportional. Pistol versus molotov cocktail is obviously proprtional.
There is a huge difference between having a loaded weapon on you or near you, and having six loaded weapons stashed around the house. While I would agree that he had the right to have a loaded weapon on his person after the attack, there is no way that he has the right to leave loaded weapons laying around.
Yeah well, minor point.....as he was the only guy that lived there.....I guess the .357 and my trusty 12 ga would have been enough, but frightened people do fightened things....who is to blame him? He was the only one there, he was in possession of them....he was in fear....no foul.
Oh hell you don't mess with the money. Screw around with the money and you can be hunted down for three weeks and shot in the bath tub. But we're talking money here not some dime a dozen life. Of course firing into a a crowd should not only get your license revoked for good but you should be charged with reckless endangerment. You don't ever shoot into a crowd. I know that and you should too. Today any guard who shot his weapon chasing after criminals would be tossed to the lions and rightly so. Money is insured and should it get stolen, it can be replaced. Shooting some bystander in the head and killing them or ruining their life for a few grand isn't worth it. If it happened to you, you might understand that.
What part of "I used them as examples of what NOT to do", with emphasis on the NOT, do you find difficult to understand?????
And it was not that long ago. Within 10 years, for one example.
And you watch too much US TV. "Reckless endangerment" is a crime in the USA, not Canada............
There is an amount of judgement police officers are allowed, but when it's a case like this, there is no wiggle room. It has to go before the courts where a judge can make a ruling
Ah baloney. Obviously, this guy was defending his life, preventing a criminal act, being perpetrated by trespassers who meant him serious harm.
The charges are a slap in the face to the individual, to justice in general, and to all our rights in particular.