Shoot first, ask questions later. A bunch of of Saskatchewan farmers say "It's okay".
The law of treeless jungle ...
The only way justice is served in a timely manner.
Shoot first, ask questions later. A bunch of of Saskatchewan farmers say "It's okay".
The law of treeless jungle ...
I guess this needs to be posted here as well. Duplicate threads.
---
Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defending your house - 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.
The court must have determined that shooting Boushie was justified. He trespassed on a property, was committing a crime, and took a weapon with him. It would be easy for the defense to establish that taking a weapon with him when attempting to rob a house meant Boushie was ready to use it, if necessary.
Once it was established that Boushie was prepared to use his rifle during the commission of a crime, then Stanley's actions became easier to justify. Stanley used enough force as was necessary. To my mind, that was the crux of the argument and the reason for the not guilty verdict.
The only way justice is served in a timely manner.
Why not shoot them all in advance?
Good plan. That would protect the innocent.
And for sake of argument, lets say he was guilty. Could it be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Are you asking if Stanley was quilty? Given that no one was there to witness what happened, or what, if anything, was said, I don't think so.
But I was not in the courtroom. None of us was, so we are speculating. The judge usually makes a statement after ruling. Perhaps we will find out how the verdict was decided.
The man will still live "under a cloud" for the rest of his days.
Under a cloud ?
More like in fear for his life.
Under a cloud ?
More like in fear for his life.
The only problem I have with this case is not the verdict but the use of peremptory challenge in jury selection instead of challenge for cause......And mark my words, he will be disarmed by the state.
Luckily, Some friend or relative will loan him a 12 ga pump.
Under a cloud? Hell no! He's a hero in some circles. Maybe, the NRA will give him the "I killed for Freedom" award. Opportunities to actually use your guns for what they are meant to be used for are few and far between, although it appears that opportunities are opening up, now.
Here's some advice: When you have had every point you've raised trashed, it is time to STFU.
STFU.
It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Mark Twain
The only problem I have with this case is not the verdict but the use of peremptory challenge in jury selection instead of challenge for cause......
Here's some advice: When you have had every point you've raised trashed, it is time to STFU.
STFU.
It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Mark Twain
Not to worry, Colby. Your chance to use one of your guns to kill someone will come along, too ...if it hasn't already. It's "okay" to do that, now. A jury in Boondocks Saskachewan says so.
Not to worry, Colby. Your chance to use one of your guns to kill someone will come along, too ...if it hasn't already. It's "okay" to do that, now. A jury in Boondocks Saskachewan says so.
I'm wondering if Trudeau isn't acting like a bit of an idiot in this case! I think he's ignoring the fact that possibly First Nations in this case are overwhelmed by emotions which are getting in the way of the facts.
Under a cloud? Hell no! He's a hero in some circles. Maybe, the NRA will give him the "I killed for Freedom" award. Opportunities to actually use your guns for what they are meant to be used for are few and far between, although it appears that opportunities are opening up, now.